L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Jose G. (In re J.R.)
| Decision Date | 23 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | B314532 |
| Citation | 82 Cal.App.5th 569,298 Cal.Rptr.3d 500 |
| Parties | IN RE J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose G., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Carol A. Koenig, Half Moon Bay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Father appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating his and mother's parental rights and finding that the child, J.R., was adoptable. We conditionally reverse that order because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the agency) violated mother's due process rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...." ( U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1.) Except in emergent circumstances, this provision guarantees reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the state may deprive a person of a protected liberty or property interest. (See Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212, 214, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 358, 303 P.3d 1140 ; Gilbert v. Homar (1997) 520 U.S. 924, 930–931, 117 S.Ct. 1807, 138 L.Ed.2d 120.) Because parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children, the due process clause requires child welfare agencies to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to locate and notify them of dependency proceedings. (See In re DeJohn B. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 100, 106, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 649 ( DeJohn B. ); In re Mia M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 792, 807, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 ( Mia M. ).) This is no idle command. It requires a thorough and systematic investigation to protect a parent's fundamental liberty interest. ( Mia M. , at p. 808, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 741.)
This case presents a textbook example of a due process violation. DCFS initiated dependency proceedings concerning J.R. on the ground that his father physically abused him. Even though father told the agency at the outset of the proceedings that mother resided in El Salvador, the record does not show that DCFS made any attempt to ascertain mother's location in that country. Instead, DCFS undertook a search of federal records and databases concerning California residents, and it later purported to serve mother with notice through publication in a Los Angeles-based newspaper. Further, after mother (a) contacted DCFS on the telephone, (b) disclosed to the agency her cellular telephone number and her address in El Salvador, and (c) provided J.R.’s birth certificate upon receiving a request through social media for that document, DCFS did not use any of that contact information to afford mother proper notice of the proceedings. The agency's failure to do so deprived her of an opportunity to persuade the juvenile court not to terminate her parental rights.
Father appeals the order terminating both parents’ parental rights.1 Father's appeal is predicated solely on DCFS's infringement of mother's right to proper notice. DCFS's principal defenses are that father lacks standing to raise mother's notice claims and any error on its part was harmless.
We conclude that father has standing to assert DCFS's violation of mother's due process rights. Under the unique circumstances of this case, we exercise our broad remedial discretion to reverse the order terminating both parents’ rights based on this due process claim, thereby conferring standing on father to maintain this appeal. First, father's appeal is the only practicable means by which the agency's contravention of mother's due process rights can be remedied. Second, affording mother proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard (a) allows mother to seek reunification with her son, and (b) promotes participation of all relevant parties, thus providing the juvenile court with a full picture of the relevant facts. Third, allowing J.R.’s interest in permanency and stability to bar father from raising mother's constitutional claim would turn the dependency scheme on its head by rewarding DCFS's failure to provide mother with any meaningful opportunity to protect her rights. In sum, we conclude that granting father standing to raise mother's due process claim by conditionally reversing the termination order as to both parents effectuates the underlying purposes of the juvenile dependency scheme.
Reaching the merits of the due process claim, we conclude the agency's violation of mother's right to due process was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the child's interest in permanency and stability counsels in favor of a conditional reversal of the termination order as to both parents to avoid any undue delay in his permanent placement. Upon remand, DCFS shall exercise reasonable diligence to locate and properly serve mother. If mother does not appear within a reasonable period of time, then the juvenile court shall reinstate the termination order as to both parents.
We summarize only those facts pertinent to our disposition of this appeal.
On August 1, 2019, DCFS filed a juvenile dependency petition concerning J.R., who was then eight years old. In the petition, DCFS alleged jurisdiction was proper under Welfare and Institutions Code 2 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1) because father had physically abused the child.
Accompanying the petition was a detention report.3 Father told the agency that he and J.R. migrated from El Salvador to the United States in August 2018. Father claimed mother lived in El Salvador, and further claimed father raised the child as a single parent because mother abandoned J.R. when he was one and a half years old. On the first page of the detention report, DCFS listed mother's address as "[w]hereabouts unknown in El Salvador."
On August 2, 2019, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. At the hearing, the court asked father whether he had mother's contact information. Father replied, The juvenile court thereafter detained J.R. from his parents.
On August 28, 2019, DCFS filed a first amended petition, which added jurisdictional allegations against mother pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g). DCFS averred that mother, whose "whereabouts [were] unknown," had "failed to provide the necessities of life for [J.R.], including food, clothing, shelter and medical care."
On August 29, 2019, DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report. The report represents that DCFS personnel initiated a due diligence search for mother, but that the "search did not locate the whereabouts of the mother due to the limited information the father [had] provided." Attached to the report is a declaration of due diligence concerning that search. Although some of the abbreviations and terms utilized in the declaration of due diligence are not clearly defined, the declaration does show that the agency limited its search to only federal government databases (e.g., federal prison records) and databases of information concerning persons located in California (e.g., records from the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters and the county jail).
On September 10, 2019, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court sustained the jurisdictional allegations included in the first amended petition, declared J.R. a dependent of the court, removed J.R. from the custody of his parents, and ordered DCFS to provide family reunification services to father. Pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1), the court ordered DCFS not to provide reunification services to mother.4 The court ordered the agency to allow mother to have monitored visits with J.R. "upon the mother contacting DCFS first."
On March 10, 2020, the juvenile court held a status review hearing pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e). The court found that returning J.R. to father's physical custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child, father's progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement had been substantial, and DCFS had offered reasonable services to enable the child's safe return home. The court ordered the agency to continue to provide reunification services to father.
A status review hearing pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (f) was held on September 16, 2020. J.R.’s counsel told the court that, "through some means that [counsel was] not completely sure of," J.R.’s foster caregiver found mother in Honduras, and the caregiver "has spoken to the mother as had" J.R. The attorney remarked that it was "baffling to [her] that DCFS [had] not called the mother and gotten any information from" her.
After J.R.’s counsel made these representations, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to "follow up in contacting mother to get her thoughts and impression of this case and whether she has anything else to offer at her residence in Honduras." Additionally, the court once again found that returning J.R. to father's physical custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to him, father's progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement had been substantial, and DCFS had offered reasonable services to enable J.R.’s safe return to father's custody. The court ordered DCFS to continue to provide fath...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Solano Cnty. Health & Soc. Servs. Dep't v. J.H. (In re A.H.)
- San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. L.C. (In re E.C.-S)
-
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Theresa P. (In re G. T.)
...that granting mother's petition would have disrupted a permanent and stable living environment for G.T. (See also In re J.R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 569, 590, fn. 30 [" '" 'Once reunification services are ordered terminated [by the juvenile court], the focus shifts to the needs of the child f......