Sade C., In re

• Citation: 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 509,37 Cal.App.4th 88
• Decision Date: 11 August 1995
• Docket Number: B084043,Nos. B082230,s. B082230
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Previously published at 37 Cal.App.4th 88, 41 Cal.App.4th 1642, 46 Cal.App.4th 614 37 Cal.App.4th 88, 41 Cal.App.4th 1642, 46 Cal.App.4th 614, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6393, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,884 In re SADE C., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. GREGORY C., Appellant. In re VANESSA R., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. EDWARD R., et al., Appellants.

Page 509

44 Cal.Rptr.2d 509

Previously published at 37 Cal.App.4th 88, 41 Cal.App.4th 1642, 46 Cal.App.4th 614

37 Cal.App.4th 88, 41 Cal.App.4th 1642, 46 Cal.App.4th 614,

95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6393,

95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,884

In re SADE C., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. GREGORY C., Appellant.

In re VANESSA R., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. EDWARD R., et al., Appellants.

Nos. B082230, B084043.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Aug. 11, 1995.

Review Granted Oct. 19, 1995.

Paula C. Mendell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Del Mar and Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Redondo Beach, for appellants.

No appearance by respondent.

CROSKEY, Associate Justice.

In these consolidated appeals, ¹ we conclude that on appeal from orders under the Welfare & Institutions Code adjudicating dependency (§ 300) and terminating parental rights (§ 366.26), where counsel for an appellant files a brief raising no issues and the parents do not file a supplemental brief which raises issues, the reviewing court is not required to conduct its own independent review of the record. We thus take issue with prior appellate court decisions (In re Joyleaf W. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 865, 198 Cal.Rptr. 114; In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153) which have held that such an independent review is required, and we announce that, unless required by the Supreme Court or the Legislature to do otherwise, this court will henceforth decline to conduct such a review.

In case number B082230, Gregory C. appeals from the order of the juvenile court under Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26, ² which terminated his parental rights In case number B084043, Edward R. and Kris M., the parents of Vanessa R., appeal from the orders of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (e) and (i), and section 361, subdivision (b), declaring Vanessa a dependent child of the juvenile court and removing her from the physical custody of her parents. On January 27, 1994, a petition under section 300 was filed, alleging, among other matters, that Vanessa had sustained severe physical injuries while in the parents' custody. Vanessa was ordered detained pending a jurisdictional hearing. At that hearing, held on May 19, 1994, the parents waived the right to contest the allegations of the petition and submitted the matter on the basis of the social study report prepared by the Department of Children's Services ("DCS"). The petition was sustained and Vanessa was ordered to be removed from the parents' physical custody. Reunification services were ordered.

                over the minor Sade C.  On January 8, 1991, Sade was [41 Cal.App.4th 620] declared a dependent child of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), 3 and was removed from her parents' custody under section 361, subdivision (b)(1). 4  On February 2, 1994, the court denied a motion filed by Gregory under section 388, 5 then terminated Gregory's parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)
                

In each appeal, counsel for the parents raise no issues and present no arguments. The parents were notified by their attorneys that briefs raising no issues would be filed and that they had the right, within thirty days, to file supplemental briefs raising any issues which they wished presented to the court. However, we have not at any time received supplemental briefs or any other direct communication from the parents. Counsel for the parents request that we independently review the record, as is required in criminal appeals under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071 ("Wende"). As we have said, we disagree with In re Joyleaf W., supra, 150 Cal.App.3d 865, 868, 198 Cal.Rptr. 114 and In re Brian B., supra, 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 398, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153, which hold that we must independently review the record. We thus decline to do so, and we therefore dismiss the appeals. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119-1120, 210 Cal.Rptr. 109.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ⁶

1. Sade C.

Sade C. was born prematurely on August 16, 1990, weighing less than four pounds and under the influence of cocaine. She was removed from her 17-year-old mother's custody four days later. Sade was adjudicated a dependent child of the juvenile court under section 300 on January 8, 1991 and, on that same date, was formally removed from her parents' physical custody under section 361. She was initially placed in a foster care facility, but was later released to the custody of her maternal great aunt, Bernice White.

Sade' mother, Lakeisha C., freely admitted that she used "primos," a combination of marijuana and cocaine. Lakeisha was in custody in Eastlake Juvenile Hall during some of the proceedings respecting Sade. Lakeisha initially cooperated with reunification efforts, but ultimately did not follow through.

Lakeisha identified Gregory C. as Sade's father, but told her social worker he denied paternity. Gregory's whereabouts were unknown during the earliest stages of the juvenile court proceedings. However, he was located by March 21, 1991, and on that date, he underwent a tissue analysis which established a 99.5% probability that he was Sade's father. Despite these test results, Gregory continued to deny paternity and did not visit Sade.

As of January 7, 1992, a year after the original declaration of dependency, DCS had an address for Gregory, but he was not responding to DCS requests for appointments. Lakeisha's whereabouts were unknown. Accordingly, after a hearing held on January 7, the court found it was unlikely Sade could be released to her parents within the next six months, and a "selection and implementation" hearing under section 366.26 was calendared for April 7, 1992.

When the April 7, 1992, hearing was calendared, it was expected that Sade's great aunt, Ms. White, would become her legal guardian. However, the matter was taken off calendar when that plan changed to one for long-term foster care in Ms. White's home. Ultimately, Ms. White decided that she wished to adopt Sade.

As of January 7, 1993, two years after the initial declaration of dependency, Gregory was not responding to repeated communications by DCS regarding Sade, and his whereabouts were again unknown. However, on July 7, 1993, Gregory filed a petition under section 388 to modify the court's prior orders owing to a change of circumstances. In the petition, Gregory stated he was incarcerated in Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, California, but his mother was willing and able to assume the care of Sade. He requested that Sade be placed with his mother.

On February 2, 1994, a hearing was held on Gregory's petition, and also on a petition to free Sade for adoption under section 366.26. Gregory and his mother, Dorothy C., testified that they wished Sade to be placed with her until Gregory was released from prison. ⁷ Ms. White testified that Sade had lived with her for three years and was bonded to her, and that on her part, she loved Sade and wished to adopt her. Two social workers testified that it would be in Sade's best interest to be freed for adoption, probably by Ms. White. After the hearing, Gregory's petition under section 388 was denied, and Sade was freed for adoption under section 366.26.

This timely appeal by Gregory followed. Lakeisha did not appear at the 366.26 hearing

and did not appeal from the resulting order.

2. Vanessa R.

On or about January 25, 1994, when Vanessa was four months of age, she was brought by her grandmother to a hospital emergency room and was treated for injuries which included a fractured clavicle, a fractured right arm, and bruises on both knees and under her right eye. The emergency room physician and Vanessa's regular pediatrician believed the injuries were caused by abuse. Vanessa was detained at the hospital, and on January 27, 1994, a petition was filed alleging that she was a person described in section 300, in that she had suffered serious non-accidental injury either intentionally inflicted by her parents (§ 300, subd. (a)) or as a result of their failure to protect her (§ 300, subd. (b)), was suffering serious emotional damage (§ 300, subd. (c)) and severe physical abuse (§ 300, subd. (e)), and had been subjected to cruelty by her parents (§ 300, subd. (i)).

At the time of her injuries, Vanessa was living with her mother, Kris M., in the home of Kris's mother and stepfather. Kris and Vanessa's father, Edward R., were described in the social worker's report as "adult teenagers." Both were high school graduates. Kris received public assistance for Vanessa. Edward was employed at a Von's Market and lived with his parents.

Edward and Kris entered into a mediation agreement with DCS regarding Vanessa. Under the agreement, the parents did not contest the allegation in the section 300 petition that they had inflicted serious non-accidental physical injuries upon Vanessa. (§ 300, subd. (a).) DCS agreed to dismiss the allegation of physical injury owing to the parents' failure to protect Vanessa and the allegation of emotional damage. Allegations that Vanessa had suffered severe physical abuse and had been subjected to cruelty by the parents were submitted to the court for determination on the basis of the social services report. It was further agreed that Kris would move out of her parents' home, Vanessa would be placed in that home, and Kris and Edward would have reunification services and reasonable visitation. Finally, the parents agreed to participate in parenting classes and counselling. On May 9, 1994, the court sustained the petition under section 300, entered orders conforming to the mediation agreement, and found true the allegations of physical abuse and...