In re J.P.
B281438
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- J.P., born 2006, has been in dependency most of his life; after various placements he lived in a group home since May 2014.
- Mother (C.P.) had court‑appointed counsel earlier, but the juvenile court relieved that counsel on May 7, 2014; mother remained unrepresented for over two years.
- Mother filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petition (Nov. 3, 2016) asking among other relief for reappointment of counsel and more liberal/unmonitored visits; supporting reports and CASA recommended increased contact.
- The juvenile court set and held a § 388 hearing (Dec. 8, 2016) but refused to appoint counsel for mother before or during the hearing; it granted limited relief but denied unmonitored visits.
- Mother appealed; the Court of Appeal found the failure to reappoint counsel was error that produced a miscarriage of justice and reversed and remanded with directions to appoint counsel, allow a new § 388 petition, and vacate certain visitation/reunification orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to appoint counsel for an indigent parent before a § 388 hearing | DCFS argued appointment was not required in the circumstances and the court had discretion | Mother argued statutory right (§ 317) and due process required reappointment for hearings after being relieved of counsel | Court: Error — statutory mandate requires appointment absent a knowing waiver; mother should have been reappointed |
| Whether the denial of counsel was structural or subject to harmless‑error review and, if harmless error, whether reversal is required | DCFS implicitly argued any error was harmless (or not shown prejudicial) | Mother argued prejudice: lack of counsel deprived her meaningful opportunity to present evidence, cross‑examine, and focus the hearing on changed circumstances/best interests | Court: Harmless‑error framework applies; here error was prejudicial — miscarriage of justice — reversal required |
| Whether unmonitored visitation denial should be sustained given the evidence favoring increased visits | DCFS emphasized mother’s past conduct and risks to child; urged caution | Mother (and child’s counsel/CASA) pointed to contemporaneous reports showing benefits from increased contact and support for unmonitored, on‑premises visits | Court: Because mother lacked counsel, the hearing process was unfair and the orders (including visitation limitations) must be vacated and reconsidered after appointment of counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (California 2003) (harmless‑error standard applies in dependency matters; reversal only if reasonably probable result would be more favorable)
- In re James F., 42 Cal.4th 901 (California 2008) (distinguishes structural errors from those amenable to harmless‑error analysis in dependency proceedings)
- In re Tanya H., 17 Cal.App.4th 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (statutory mandate to appoint counsel for indigent parent absent waiver)
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (discussion of appellate review standards for denial of counsel claims)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (California 1956) (standard for reversible error: reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome absent the error)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (California 1993) (parental interest in custody is fundamental; best interests of the child govern dependency decisions)