Imperial County Department of Social Services v. Ray M.
6 Cal. App. 5th 1038
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Ray M., a longtime dependent under Welfare & Institutions Code §300, was moved among placements and later arrested in Kern County for conduct triggering a §602 delinquency petition.
- Kern County probation prepared a §241.1 joint assessment recommending wardship; Kern conducted a §241.1 hearing and determined wardship without giving required notice to Imperial County dependency counsel or the Imperial juvenile court.
- The Kern report noted limited input from Kern counsel (newly appointed public defender) but omitted substantive input from Ray's Imperial dependency counsel and other dependency records.
- Imperial County later received the transferred delinquency matter, declared Ray a ward, and Imperial dependency counsel moved to rehear the §241.1 assessment because of the notice failure; the Imperial dependency court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to revisit Kern's §241.1 determination.
- The Department conceded ICWA inquiry was inadequate (father mentioned possible Cherokee heritage) and agreed remand was needed for ICWA compliance if dependency status is later chosen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department/State) | Defendant's Argument (Ray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to provide §241.1/rule 5.512 notice to Imperial counsel and court required reversal of the §241.1 determination | Error was harmless because parties knew of hearing, Kern counsel participated, and the report was comprehensive | Lack of notice deprived Ray of opportunity to be heard; error prejudicial under harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard | Reversed: notice omission was prejudicial; Imperial court may remedy by conducting a new §241.1 assessment with proper notice and participation |
| Whether Imperial juvenile court had authority to revisit/correct Kern County's §241.1 determination after transfer | Imperial lacked authority to overturn Kern's procedural determination; remedy lay by appeal to Court of Appeal or in Kern | Imperial court has inherent and statutory authority (§§ 245.5, 385, 775, art. VI) to correct procedural defects and rehear §241.1 to ensure orderly administration and minors' rights | Reversed: Imperial court possessed authority to revisit §241.1 and should conduct a new assessment |
| Standard of review for a §241.1 determination | — | — | §241.1 determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; procedural defects based on legal error warrant reversal |
| Whether ICWA inquiry/notice satisfied | Department conceded inquiry insufficient despite possible Cherokee ancestry | Ray sought reversal/remand for proper ICWA inquiry and notice | Remand required: if dependency status is determined, court must order proper ICWA inquiry and notice to tribe |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.V., 225 Cal.App.4th 1495 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (explaining §241.1 and rule 5.512 joint assessment and notice requirements)
- Marcus G., 73 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (interpreting when joint assessment accompanies later petition creating potential dual jurisdiction)
- Nickolas F. v. Superior Court, 144 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (juvenile court authority to reconsider prior orders under §385 and inherent powers)
- In re J.H., 158 Cal.App.4th 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for notice errors in juvenile proceedings)
- In re J.N., 138 Cal.App.4th 450 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (ICWA inquiry and remand when initial inquiry inadequate)