In re Y.T. CA5, F083370

Oct 2019: Mother arrested while allegedly intoxicated; six‑year‑old Y.T. removed after neglect indicators (dirty, inappropriate clothing, lice) and mother’s admitted recent meth use.
Mother had five other children previously dependent; two adopted and three with a maternal aunt; department placed Y.T. with siblings’ adoptive parent who was committed to adopt if reunification failed.
Juvenile court ordered reunification services; mother had sporadic participation in substance‑abuse treatment, missed many visits, refused some drug testing, and was incarcerated part of the period.
At the 12‑month review counsel reported inability to reach mother and requested appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL); mother expressly consented after the court explained the GAL’s role.
Mother thereafter failed to appear at contested hearings; the court terminated reunification services, denied mother’s section 388 petition, and at section 366.26 terminated parental rights; mother appealed, arguing the GAL appointment violated due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Whether appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) for mother at 12‑month review was improper	Consent was uninformed and evidence was insufficient to justify appointing a GAL; appointment denied mother direct communication with counsel and prejudiced her case	Any procedural error was harmless; GAL provided a voice for mother and mother’s failures (nonappearance, minimal compliance) caused the outcome	Mother expressly consented after court explanation; consent satisfied due process. Even assuming error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because mother’s nonattendance and lack of evidence doomed reunification and termination outcomes.
Whether mother forfeited challenge to the GAL appointment by not timely raising it	Mother contends consent was invalid so issue is preserved	Department notes appeal may not properly cover the earlier GAL order	Court questioned potential forfeiture but decided the GAL claim fails on the merits (consent and harmlessness), so reversal not required

In re Sara D., 87 Cal.App.4th 661 (parental competency and GAL appointment; consent satisfies due process in dependency context)
In re James F., 42 Cal.4th 901 (procedure for appointing GAL to parent; harmless‑error standard applies)
In re Jessica G., 93 Cal.App.4th 1180 (parent’s interest in appointment decision; due process implications)
In re Esmeralda S., 165 Cal.App.4th 84 (harmless‑error review of GAL appointment assessed by effect on outcome)
In re Amber M., 103 Cal.App.4th 681 (standard for showing parental relationship exception to adoption under § 366.26)
In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (parental visitation and bonding evidence relevant to § 366.26 exception)
Mabry v. Scott, 51 Cal.App.2d 245 (inherent power to appoint GAL when parent incompetent)
In re Janee J., 74 Cal.App.4th 198 (appeal timing and forfeiture of challenges to earlier juvenile court orders)