In re S.L. CA6, H048652

Background

Parents D.A. (father) and E.L. (mother) share three children: A.A. (2006), Y.A. (2007), and S.L. ("minor," 2009). Dependency filed May 2019 for serious emotional damage from acrimonious custody dispute and parental conduct.
Father encouraged Y.A. to install a hidden camera in mother’s home; video captured mother verbally abusing and threatening the children. Parents admitted petition and submitted to jurisdiction (Nov 2019).
During the case Y.A. engaged in aggressive acts toward minor (cutting his hair; brandishing a knife); A.A. aligned with mother; minor displayed anxiety, threatened self-harm, and oscillated in custody preferences.
Department provided services; mother consistently engaged in therapy and parenting classes, father’s engagement was limited and he refused releases for his therapist. Department recommended terminating jurisdiction and awarding minor to mother with unsupervised visitation for father.
Juvenile court (Oct 2020) terminated dependency for all three children, awarded sole legal and physical custody of minor and A.A. to mother (Y.A. to father), and ordered unsupervised visitation for noncustodial parents. Father appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether juvenile court erred in terminating jurisdiction	Termination appropriate because parents and children engaged in services, safety concerns addressed, and services remain available post-termination	Jurisdiction should have continued because minor remained fragile and recent reports indicated ongoing verbal abuse/being kicked out	Court affirmed termination: conflicting evidence supported finding conditions prompting jurisdiction had been remedied and undisputed facts did not compel reversal
Whether minor was properly notified / had right to be present at hearings (§ 349)	Department noted minor had counsel, participated in third hearing, and services continued post-termination	Father argued minor lost remote connection and was not properly notified of right to attend earlier hearings	Forfeited on appeal: father failed to object below; no extraordinary circumstances shown to excuse forfeiture
Whether single counsel for all three children created an actual conflict	Department contended counsel properly assessed each child’s best interests and advocated accordingly	Father asserted counsel should have been disqualified because minor and A.A. gave contradictory accounts material to custody	No actual conflict: counsel explained why best interests aligned; even assuming error, any failure to appoint separate counsel was harmless—no reasonable probability of a different outcome
Ineffective assistance of minor’s counsel	Department argued counsel acted within duties to advocate minors’ best interests and adequately presented minor’s wishes and supporting evidence	Father claimed counsel ignored minor’s custody preference and provided deficient representation	Claim fails as any alleged deficiency was not prejudicial given the evidentiary record supporting termination and placement decisions

Key Cases Cited

In re N.O., 31 Cal.App.5th 899 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (standard of review when appellant bore burden at review).
In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) (forfeiture rule; objections must be raised in trial court).
In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 2003) (when separate counsel is required for sibling clients).
In re Zamer G., 153 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (analysis of actual conflict for counsel representing multiple minors).
People v. Bonin, 47 Cal.3d 808 (Cal. 1989) (preservation of conflict claims).
Serrano v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Bd., 16 Cal.App.3d 787 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (presumption that trial court considered competent evidence).
In re Merrick V., 122 Cal.App.4th 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (deference to credibility determinations).