In re Laura F

In In re Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, the court affirmed an order declaring the mother's three children free from her custody and control under Civil Code section 232. Although not an issue raised on appeal, the probable effect of the order was to leave the children in foster care or other out-of-home placements where they had spent the last several years. In response evidently to the Chief's Justice's dissent, the majority said: "It may be suggested that nothing be done, that the children be permitted to stay where they are. As noted several times, however, the purpose of the statute permitting termination of parental rights is to 'serve the welfare and best interests of a child by providing the stability and security of an adoptive home ....' To facilitate the stated goal, 'it seems indisputable that ... the state as a parens patriae not only has a compelling interest but also a duty to sever the parental bonds once a situation contemplated by the statute arises.' "There is, of course, no specific proof that Laura and Tammy will be adopted or, indeed, that the now prospective adoption of Stacy will be effectuated. Neither, however, is there authority for the proposition that termination is improper unless there is an adopting parent waiting in the wings..... "We take no issue with the proposition that the purpose of section 232 is to facilitate the adoption of minor children. We also recognize that some children are more 'adoptable' than others and that a child's chances of obtaining the security of an adoptive home are lessened by emotional or physical handicaps. But for a child who faces, in all probability, perpetual foster care with no realistic chance for a stable home with natural parents, it can only be a plus to become legally eligible for adoption. We are satisfied that the possibility of adoption for all of Della's children is at least as good or better than the possibility--described by the court as 'extremely remote'-- that Della will ever be capable of exercising parental responsibilities. Thus the termination of parental rights under these circumstances is 'the least detrimental alternative' for the three children whose only other realistic alternative is the limbo of perpetual foster care." (Laura F., supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 837-838, ) The Chief Justice, in a concurring and dissenting opinion joined by two other justices, dissented from this portion of the decision. "... I am particularly disturbed by the holding that the mother- daughter relationship must be terminated. As a result of this decision Laura and Tammy will permanently lose the right to see their natural mother even though there is evidence that their relationship has been a close and loving one. This relationship should not be permanently severed without some showing of adoptability. "Even a cursory glance through the statutory scheme reveals a clear legislative intent that parental rights are not to be terminated unless there is at least some realistic possibility that the child or children will be adopted thereafter...." (Laura F., supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 840, conc. and dis. opn. by Bird, C.J.)