Jody R., In re

• Decision Date: 23 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. C006079,C006079
• Citation: 218 Cal.App.3d 1615,267 Cal.Rptr. 746
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re JODY R., Kristy R., and Cindy R., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SIERRA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENE C. and Sandra H., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 746

267 Cal.Rptr. 746

218 Cal.App.3d 1615

In re JODY R., Kristy R., and Cindy R., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SIERRA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENE C. and Sandra H., Defendants and Appellants.

No. C006079.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

March 23, 1990.

Andrew French Loomis, Oakland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Michael McPartland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendants and appellants.

William W. Pangman, County Counsel, for plaintiff and respondent.

SCOTLAND, Associate Justice.

Sandra H. and her live-in male companion, Gene C., appeal from an order of the juvenile court joining Gene as a party to proceedings in which Sandra's children were declared dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a). (Further statutory references are to the Welf. & Inst.Code.)

We conclude that, because it has no statutory authority to do so, a juvenile court is without jurisdiction to order the involuntary joinder of a live-in companion who is neither the parent nor guardian of a dependent child in an effort to secure the companion's compliance with a reunification plan designed to overcome the problems which caused the dependency to be established. Since the Legislature has limited the options available to the juvenile court with respect to live-in companions, we are compelled to reverse the order of joinder.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following a report that Sandra's live-in male companion, Gene, had repeatedly beaten one of Sandra's daughters, the Sierra County Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned the juvenile court to declare Sandra's children dependents of the court under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (d). ¹ In addition to physical abuse, the petitions contained other allegations which are not pertinent to this discussion.

Sandra and DSS entered into a stipulation with respect to the jurisdiction and disposition phases of the dependency proceedings. While neither admitting nor denying the factual allegations set forth in the petitions, Sandra admitted, among other things, that her children had been "disciplined" by Gene, had been removed from school without approval of the school district Except for the daughter who had been beaten by Gene, it was agreed that the children would remain with Sandra subject to her participation in a "reunification plan" set forth in the stipulation. The plan required that Sandra and her children be evaluated by a clinical psychologist and follow the psychologist's recommendations. Sandra also was required to attend parenting classes, readmit the children to school and "diligently work toward establishing a living situation in which the Minors are provided with a safe, stable and nurturing home" and toward "protecting the Minors from unreasonable discipline or abuse from others." In this regard, the reunification plan sought to place certain requirements on "any other adult [who] lives with Sandra and the Minors ..., including Gene...." These requirements included that Gene participate in psychological counseling, attend parenting classes, and "diligently work toward establishing a living situation in which the Minors are provided with a safe, stable and nurturing home ... in which reasonable disciplinary standards are set for the Minors...."

suffered various degrees of emotional distress from past experiences, and were in need of emotional counseling. Sandra acknowledged that, based upon her admissions, the juvenile court would make findings and orders declaring the children dependents of the court under section 300, subdivision (a).

Sandra signed this stipulation, but she and her attorney objected to the requirements imposed upon Gene, who was not present at the hearing and did not sign the stipulation. With this understanding, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation and declared the children dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a). The allegations set forth in the petition under section 300, subdivision (d), were dismissed. The juvenile court then ordered that the children remain in Sandra's home and directed her to comply with the requirements of the reunification plan set forth in the stipulation.

Over the next year, Gene, who continued to reside with Sandra and the children, voluntarily participated in counseling. However, he refused to attend parenting classes, and the children reported that he continued to inflict corporal punishment on them. Recognizing that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction over Gene, DSS made an ex parte application for an order to show cause why Gene should not be joined as a party to these dependency proceedings in order to enforce the terms of the reunification plan which pertained to him.

Both Sandra and Gene opposed this application on the ground that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to make such an order. The juvenile court initially continued the application in order for Gene to voluntarily comply with the reunification plan by continuing counseling with a therapist and refraining from corporal discipline of the children. Apparently, this was not entirely successful as Gene resented the intervention of DSS. Therefore, at the semi-annual review hearing, the juvenile court granted DSS' application and joined Gene as a party, ordering him to comply with the terms of the reunification plan to the extent it was not inconsistent with the directions of his therapist and to refrain from hitting, spanking or inflicting corporal punishment on the minors. Sandra was ordered to inform DSS of any instances of Gene violating this directive. Both Gene and Sandra have appealed from the order.

DISCUSSION

I

The parties have informed us that, while this appeal was pending, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency proceedings upon the recommendation of DSS. Thus, the issue before us is no longer of consequence to the parties, and any ruling by this court would have no practical effect upon them.

As a general rule, "an appeal presenting only abstract or academic questions is subject to dismissal as moot." (Downtown Palo Alto Com. for Fair Assessment v We choose to exercise such discretion in this case. While we hope that the necessity for reestablishing these dependency proceedings does not reoccur, the possibility for such action exists. Moreover, considering the large volume of dependency cases, the societal interest served by such proceedings, and the frequency with which these proceedings involve live-in companions, we find that the issue raised is likely to recur and is a matter of significant public interest. Therefore, we address the merits of this appeal.

                City Council (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 384, 391, 225 Cal.Rptr. 559.)   However, both sides have suggested that this court address the merits of the appeal, relying upon an established exception which provides, "If an action involves a matter of continuing public interest and the issue is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue, even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot."  (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712, 715-716, 106 Cal.Rptr. 21, 505 P.2d 213.)
                

II

Appellants' sole contention is that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to order the involuntary joinder of Gene in these dependency proceedings. "Lack of jurisdiction" is a term used to describe situations in which a court is without authority to act. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 288-291, 109 P.2d 942.) In its most fundamental sense, lack of jurisdiction means an entire absence of power to hear the particular subject matter of the case. (Id., at p. 288, 109 P.2d 942.) The term also relates to the court's inability to render judgments against individuals who have not properly been made parties to an action. (Ibid.) Even when a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in a fundamental sense, it may have no "jurisdiction" or power to make orders which are not authorized by statute. (Id., at pp. 288-290, 109 P.2d 942.) "[I]t seems well settled ... that when a statute authorizes prescribed procedure, and the court acts contrary to the authority thus conferred, it has exceeded its jurisdiction...." (Id., at p. 290, 109 P.2d 942.) Here, appellants do not contest the juvenile court's subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, they argue that the court exceeded the defined powers conferred on it by statute when it joined Gene as a party to the dependency proceedings against his wishes.

In addressing appellant's contention, we find it useful to begin with a brief overview of dependency law. First, we note that "[a] superior court convened as and exercising the special powers of a juvenile court is vested with jurisdiction to make only those limited determinations authorized by the legislative grant of those special powers." (In re Lisa R. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 636, 643, 119 Cal.Rptr. 475, 532 P.2d 123; see § 245.) In the absence of such specific statutory authorization, a juvenile court is vested with authority to make only those determinations which are "incidentally necessary to the performance of those functions demanded of it by the Legislature pursuant to the Juvenile Court Law." (Ibid.)

Dependency law is set forth in sections 300 through 399. ² Its purpose is twofold: to protect the welfare of children by the state acting as parens patriae; and to safeguard the parents' or guardians' rights to raise their children by providing services to help them overcome problems which created the need for a dependency adjudication. (In re John B. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 268, 274, 205 Cal.Rptr. 321; In re La Shonda B. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 593, 599, 157 Cal.Rptr. 280; In re Nicole B. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 874, 879-880, 155 Cal.Rptr. 916.)

Section 300 provides that...