In re M.G. CA4/2
E075247
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background:
- Children were detained after reports of parental substance abuse, domestic violence, and inadequate medical/dental care; paternal grandparents became caretakers.
- Mother received reunification services (parenting, domestic violence, substance‑abuse treatment, therapy, psychological evaluation) but attendance and sobriety were inconsistent; some progress was noted in therapy.
- At the 18‑month (older siblings) and 12‑month (E.C.) review hearings the juvenile court found Mother had not benefitted sufficiently from services, terminated reunification, and set a Welfare & Institutions Code § 366.26 hearing proposing legal guardianship with paternal grandparents.
- Mother’s counsel filed a notice of intent to seek writ review but later declined to file a writ petition after reviewing the record; Mother did not file an extraordinary writ herself.
- At the § 366.26 hearing the court appointed paternal grandparents as legal guardians; Mother appealed from that order, challenging the earlier review‑hearing rulings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence at 12/18‑month reviews that return would be detrimental | Mother: evidence was insufficient to show she didn’t benefit and return would be harmful | Department: review findings are final because Mother failed to seek writ review of the setting orders | Waived—appeal barred because Mother failed to file extraordinary writ as required to challenge setting orders |
| Whether Mother received reasonable reunification services/visitation | Mother: she was not provided reasonable services or visitation | Department: services and therapist reports were provided; visits occurred and were sometimes liberalized | Waived—same forfeiture; not cognizable on appeal from § 366.26 order |
| Good cause to excuse failure to file extraordinary writ (right to file in propria persona) | Mother: counsel didn’t notify her after deciding not to file; she should get chance to file pro se | Department: counsel may decline to file if no meritorious issues; no rule requires permitting pro se filing after counsel declines | Denied—no new rule; counsel’s decision not to file was permissible and no good cause shown |
| Fundamental unfairness (conflict of interest by social worker; IAC at review hearings) | Mother: social worker biased and counsel unprepared, so review hearings were fundamentally unfair | Department: record shows reports and evaluations were provided; Mother had opportunity to seek new counsel and did not; counsel advocated for return | Denied—no defect that fundamentally undermined process; IAC not established; waiver still bars review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Liliana S., 115 Cal.App.4th 585 (establishes that unappealed dependency orders are final and cannot be attacked on later appeal)
- In re Meranda P., 56 Cal.App.4th 1143 (same principle on finality of disposition orders)
- In re Jesse W., 93 Cal.App.4th 349 (policy reasons for waiver rule: finality and preventing late‑stage attacks)
- In re Cathina W., 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (setting orders are not appealable; extraordinary writ is required)
- In re A.A., 243 Cal.App.4th 1220 (procedural requirements and counsel duties re: writ notices and petitions)
- Glen C. v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 570 (counsel not required to file meritless writs; no Anders/Wende‑type review in dependency appeals)
- In re Phoenix H., 47 Cal.4th 835 (court not required to allow parent to file supplemental pro se brief absent good cause)
- In re Janee J., 74 Cal.App.4th 198 (exceptions to waiver are narrow; must show fundamental defect)
- In re M.F., 161 Cal.App.4th 673 (describes due‑process limits on waiver rule and when exception applies)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (framework for assessing due‑process interests in dependency proceedings)