In re Z.Z. CA1/3, A161162

Background

Mother L.P. has a history of mental health issues (self‑reported bipolar disorder, hearing voices) and was recently hospitalized/placed on a 5150 hold after suicidal ideation; children reported threats and physical/verbal abuse.
On May 7, 2020 the Department filed a dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code §300 based on threats with a knife and children's fear; children were detained and placed with their maternal grandmother, C.R.
L.P. was represented by counsel throughout; she initially sought a contested hearing but at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing said she would “object and submit” (i.e., submit to the court) and pursue reunification.
The juvenile court sustained the petition, ordered reunification services, and entered a restraining order; the court did not give the on‑the‑record advisements required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.682, nor obtain a personal, on‑the‑record waiver or form JV‑190 from L.P.
L.P. appealed, arguing the court’s failure to advise her of hearing rights and to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver violated due process. The Department conceded the procedural omission but argued the error was harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court’s failure to advise L.P. of her hearing rights and to obtain a personal waiver violated due process	Court failed to give required Rule 5.682 advisements and obtain an on‑the‑record/personal waiver	Department conceded failure to give advisements but disputed relief is required because error was harmless	Court: Failure to advise/obtain waiver was error (violated rule 5.682)
Whether the error is structural (requiring automatic reversal) or subject to harmless‑error review	L.P. relied on Judith P. to argue the error was structural and reversible per se	Department: Error is subject to harmless‑error analysis and the record shows no prejudice	Court: Error is not structural here; apply harmless‑error analysis and affirm if no prejudice
Standard of prejudice to apply (Watson vs. Chapman)	L.P. urged reversal under a strict standard or that structural rule controls	Department argued harmless under relevant precedent; court noted differing authorities	Court: Did not decide which test is generally correct but applied the stricter Chapman standard and found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether the omission prejudiced L.P. (i.e., could she have successfully contested jurisdiction)	L.P. argued her due process rights were violated by lack of advisement/waiver	Department pointed to counsel’s involvement, L.P.’s submissions, and overwhelming evidence supporting jurisdiction	Court: No prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt; counsel had informed L.P., evidence supporting jurisdiction was overwhelming, so result would not have changed

Key Cases Cited

In re S.N., 2 Cal.App.5th 665 (2016) (failure to advise parent of rights before accepting submission was error but may be harmless)
In re Monique T., 2 Cal.App.4th 1372 (1992) (failure to advise and obtain personal waiver is error; applied Chapman harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard)
Judith P. v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.4th 535 (2002) (untimely service of report was structural error requiring reversal)
In re James F., 42 Cal.4th 901 (2008) (harmless‑error analysis may apply in dependency contexts despite criminal analogies)
In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (rejecting structural‑error analogies from criminal law to dependency proceedings)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (established beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt harmless‑error standard for constitutional errors)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (reasonable‑probability standard for nonconstitutional error)