L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Y.Q. (In re Western)
16 Cal. App. 5th 409
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Kayla born Nov 2014; in Aug 2015 her parents petitioned probate court to appoint maternal grandmother Maria and her husband Kevin as legal guardians; probate guardianship granted Nov 2015.
- March 2016: Kevin assaulted Maria; criminal protective order entered; Department investigated and filed dependency petition alleging Maria and Kevin endangered Kayla by domestic violence and unsafe home conditions; parents named but mother not alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct.
- June–July 2016: Amended petition filed; Maria and Kevin pleaded no contest to amended allegations; disposition continued to August 2016.
- Aug 2, 2016: Mother obtained probate order terminating the guardianship and brought that order to the juvenile court at the Aug 5 disposition hearing.
- At the disposition hearing the juvenile court ruled the probate termination order was invalid while dependency was pending, found mother lacked standing to participate or have appointed counsel, excused her, and then placed Kayla with Maria; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Department/Juvenile Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother (a noncustodial parent with a preexisting probate guardianship) had standing to participate in dependency disposition and to receive appointed counsel | Mother: As a parent whose parental rights were not terminated, she had standing and was entitled to be present and to appointed counsel at dispositional hearing | Court/Dept: Mother lacked standing because probate guardianship had been established and the probate order terminating it was ineffective while dependency pending | Court: Reversed — mother was a noncustodial parent with standing and entitled to appointed counsel at disposition |
| Whether denial of mother's participation and counsel prejudiced her so reversal is unnecessary | Mother: Denial prevented her from requesting custody or visitation and presenting evidence with counsel | Department: No prejudice because mother could not obtain custody or visitation at disposition once child returned to guardian | Court: Mother was prejudiced — denial foreclosed custody/visitation requests and evidence presentation; remand for new disposition with appointed counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.D., 163 Cal.App.4th 679 (discusses de novo review of legal issues applying statutes/rules)
- In re Kristin H., 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (indigent parents entitled to counsel when out-of-home placement at issue)
- Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (probate guardianship suspends but does not terminate parental rights)
- In re Catherine H., 102 Cal.App.4th 1284 (parent with child in probate guardianship is noncustodial parent in dependency and retains rights)
- In re Korbin Z., 3 Cal.App.5th 511 (juvenile court may order visitation for noncustodial parent under dispositional authority)