In re Isabella M.
B277142
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- Isabella born June 2014 to Bridgett M.; mother had history of methamphetamine use and an older son already a dependent. Isabella placed with maternal grandmother.
- R.C. was incarcerated from February 2014 through late 2015/early 2016; he was not on Isabella’s birth certificate and did not visibly participate in her care while incarcerated.
- The Department served R.C. with notice of dependency hearings by mail to prison and sent transport orders; R.C. did not attend initial hearings and did not return a waiver until later. The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition, declared Isabella a dependent, and denied reunification services to R.C. as an alleged father.
- After multiple continuances, the maternal grandmother’s adoption home study was approved; R.C. was released, obtained counsel, and submitted to paternity testing which confirmed he was the biological father.
- R.C. filed a Welfare & Institutions Code section 388 petition alleging defective notice (lack of JV-505 and no express waiver under Penal Code § 2625) and sought presumed-father status and reunification. The juvenile court denied the section 388 petition, found notice sufficient, and later terminated parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated due process/Penal Code § 2625 by adjudicating dependency and denying services without R.C.’s physical presence or an express signed waiver | Dept.: No violation — § 2625(d) applies only if the prisoner requests to attend; no request by R.C. | R.C.: Court proceeded without required express written waiver or transport order, violating § 2625 and due process | Court: No § 2625(d) violation because R.C. never requested presence; any error in transport/waiver was not reversible here |
| Whether failure to serve Judicial Council form JV‑505 (notice re: how to seek presumed‑father status) violated statutory/due process rights requiring reversal | Dept.: Any defective notice is subject to harmless‑error analysis; Dept. had otherwise provided notice and records show no contact from R.C. | R.C.: Omission of JV‑505 deprived him of the information needed to timely seek presumed status, so orders must be vacated | Court: JV‑505 omission was error but harmless — R.C. would not probably have achieved presumed status or obtained reunification given incarceration, lack of prior involvement, and delay beyond the reunification period |
| Whether R.C.’s late attempt to change status via § 388 should have been granted to restart proceedings or obtain reunification services | Dept.: Denial was proper because child’s best interest favors permanency; R.C. waited past critical timelines and did not contact the case earlier | R.C.: Lack of earlier notice and incarceration justify relief under § 388 to protect due process and parental rights | Court: Denial of § 388 was within discretion — child’s need for permanency outweighed belated change; relief denied |
| Whether termination of parental rights was improper given the notice/parentage issues | Dept.: Termination appropriate; procedural defects harmless and adoption plan served child’s best interest | R.C.: Termination after defective notice and without recognition as presumed father violated rights | Court: Termination affirmed; procedural errors did not render proceedings prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 2005) (UPA governs parentage determinations)
- In re Zacharia D., 6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993) (§ 388 is proper remedy for notice‑based due process claims; courts prioritize child permanency)
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (due process requires meaningful opportunity for biological father to seek presumed status)
- In re Marcos G., 182 Cal.App.4th 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (JV‑505 notice and incarcerated‑father issues; harmless‑error analysis)
- In re Kobe A., 146 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (presumed‑father status requires receipt of child into home and holding out)
- In re Josiah Z., 36 Cal.4th 664 (Cal. 2005) (emphasizing harm of prolonged uncertainty; child’s need for timely permanency)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (standards for § 388 relief and best‑interest focus after reunification ends)