Therolf v. Superior Court of Madera Cnty.
| Decision Date | 27 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | F083561 |
| Citation | 80 Cal.App.5th 308,295 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 |
| Parties | Garrett THEROLF, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF MADERA COUNTY, Respondent; Madera County Department of Social Services/child Welfare Services, Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
University of California at Irvine School of Law, Susan E. Seager and Jack Lerner for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Regina A. Garza, County Counsel, Fresno, CA, and Christopher B. Dorian, Deputy County Counsel, Madera, CA, for Real Party in Interest.
Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827, subdivision (a)(2)1 (hereafter section 827(a)(2) or § 827(a)(2) ), the juvenile court is required to release to the public the "juvenile case files ... that pertain to a deceased child who was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300" unless the juvenile court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that release of the files would be detrimental to "another child who is directly or indirectly connected to the juvenile case that is the subject of the petition." ( § 827(a)(2)(A).) To obtain a deceased child's juvenile case files, a petition must be filed and interested parties afforded an opportunity to file objections. (Ibid. ) If objections are filed, the juvenile court "shall set the matter for hearing" and thereafter "render its decision" based on the petition, any objections, any reply, and the argument at the hearing. ( § 827(a)(2)(F).)
Petitioner Garrett Therolf, a journalist, petitioned to obtain the juvenile case file of a deceased child, Mariah F., whose adoptive mother was convicted of her torture and murder. Although the Madera County Department of Social Services/Child Welfare Services (department) filed an objection to the disclosure of Mariah's juvenile case file, the juvenile court denied Therolf's petition before the time to file a reply had expired and without holding a hearing, finding release of the file would be detrimental to another child directly or indirectly connected to Mariah's case.
Therolf seeks a writ of mandate or prohibition to compel the juvenile court to vacate its order denying the petition. He contends the juvenile court erred when it issued the order denying his petition without allowing him time to file a reply brief and without holding a hearing. While the department concedes these errors, it argues they are harmless because Mariah was not within the juvenile court's jurisdiction when she died, as she was not the subject of a current dependency case and no jurisdictional finding had been made with respect to her.
We agree the juvenile court erred when it did not allow Therolf time to file a reply to the department's objection and failed to hold a hearing on his petition. We reject the department's contention that Mariah was not within the juvenile court's jurisdiction when she died and concur with the decision in In re Elijah S. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1538–1539, 1556, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 ( Elijah S. ), which held the juvenile court has exclusive authority to order release of a deceased child's juvenile records regardless of whether a dependency petition has been filed and a prior jurisdictional finding has been made. The juvenile court prejudicially erred when it failed to require the department to produce the full scope of documents as set forth in Elijah S. We also reject Therolf's contention that, contrary to our decision in Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agency (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 821, 831–834, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 ( Pack ), the juvenile court was required to make specific factual findings when making a detriment finding. But we find the juvenile court's failure to comply with the other procedures set forth in Pack concerning in camera review of the records and preserving those records for appellate review, also was prejudicial. We conclude the failure to hold a hearing was prejudicial, especially in light of the juvenile court's failure to comply with Elijah S. and the Pack procedures, as we were deprived of an adequate record to review the juvenile court's order.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandate and direct the juvenile court to vacate its orders, hold a hearing on Therolf's petition after ordering the department to produce Mariah's juvenile case file in accordance with Elijah S. , review the responsive documents in camera, and reconsider the petition applying the appropriate standards.
In February 2020, Amy C. was convicted of the torture and October 2014 murder of her 12-year-old daughter, Mariah, and the torture of her then 14-year-old son, C.F. Amy adopted the children after being a foster mother to them; the adoption became final in February 2014. According to a 2020 newspaper account of the case, the department removed the "remaining children" from the home in March 2015, and before Mariah's death, numerous calls and several written reports had been made to the department expressing concerns about her condition.
On June 25, 2021, journalist Garrett Therolf filed a request for disclosure of Mariah's juvenile case file under section 827(a)(2) using mandatory Judicial Council form JV-570.2 On the form, he indicated item 4b, which states, "I believe the child ... died as a result of abuse or neglect," applied, and listed an approximate date of death as October 14, 2014. Where the form provided a space to explain why he needed the records, Therolf wrote that he did not need to provide a reason for seeking Mariah's juvenile case file because the petition was filed under section 827(a)(2).
Therolf requested Mariah's "entire ‘juvenile case file,’ including records filed in juvenile court and related records created by county agencies to investigate suspected child abuse/neglect that were not filed in court, including records where no petition was filed in court, including records of child abuse hotline calls, and 911 calls and social worker notes, emails, and reports," citing section 827(a)(2), California Rules of Court, rule 5.552,3 and Elijah S., supra , 125 Cal.App.4th at page 1552, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 16. In an attachment, Therolf asserted that based on these authorities, the term "juvenile case file" consists of a wide variety of records, including both juvenile court records and documents outside the court file. Therolf requested the disclosure of 23 categories of documents, which he asserted he was entitled to even if no juvenile dependency petition had been filed.4
The department filed an objection to release of the juvenile case on September 20, 2021.5 The department asserted no responsive documents existed because Mariah was not subject to the juvenile court's jurisdiction when she died, as required by section 827(a)(2), and while her death led to a referral that resulted in the removal of her siblings in October 2014, she died before those juvenile dependency proceedings commenced. The department argued the Elijah S. case Therolf relied on for the proposition that section 827(a)(2) applied notwithstanding the lack of a juvenile dependency petition or jurisdictional finding is fundamentally flawed and disputed its applicability as precedent. The department noted the parties were in litigation at the appellate level before this court in two appeals and a writ petition Therolf filed to obtain review of the trial court's denial of section 827(a)(2) petitions he brought seeking the juvenile case files of two siblings.6 The department attached a summary of the argument it made in response to those cases, which set forth its analysis and argument as to why Elijah S. should not be followed, and asked the juvenile court to refrain from ruling on the issue pending our decision in those cases.
The department recognized Mariah was the subject of a prior juvenile dependency case that resulted in her adoption, the legal change of her name, and termination of dependency jurisdiction. The department objected to the release of this file as being detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of another child connected to the juvenile case. The department asserted the records "would be indelibly intertwined with those of any siblings [Mariah] may have had and who may have been concurrently detained and found to be dependent minors," and "[i]t would likely be impossible to effectively redact the extensive record of that case so as to obscure the identities of any such siblings, who's privacy interests would be heightened should they also have been subject to adoption and subsequent name changes." The department argued since Therolf was seeking the records "to further publicize the intimate details of Mariah's life," the release of this file as well as the juvenile case file concerning the siblings detained after Mariah's death would risk publication of any sibling's statutorily protected information and be detrimental to their physical or emotional well-being. The department asserted redaction could not prevent the identification of information concerning Mariah's siblings considering the publicity surrounding the case and attached a 2020 newspaper article concerning the case as an example of such publicity.
On September 23, 2021, the juvenile court issued an order, using mandatory form JV-573, on which it checked the box next to item 5, which states: "The child is deceased and the court will conduct a review of the juvenile case file and any filed objections." That same day, the juvenile court filed an order after judicial review of the petition using mandatory form JV-574.7
The juvenile court checked the box next to item 5, which states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Vallejo v. Superior Court (In re W.M.)
... ... of statutory interpretation that we review independently ... (Therolf v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th ... 308, 333, fn. 23 [de novo review for statutory ... ...