26 Cal. App. 5th 1044
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- D.Y. was placed with his maternal grandmother under a legal guardianship in 2001 after being detained at birth; the juvenile court retained dependency jurisdiction and held six-month reviews for ~16 years.
- Grandmother repeatedly opposed terminating dependency (largely to keep DCFS supports and payments); DCFS usually recommended continuing jurisdiction but sometimes recommended termination.
- In December 2017 DCFS’s last status report noted outstanding education and orthodontia issues it intended to follow up on but did not provide the updated information.
- At the December 2017 hearing minor’s counsel asked for a continuance so DCFS could supply the missing information and so the guardian and minor could attend; the court declined, discussed the matter off the record, and terminated dependency jurisdiction over objections.
- D.Y. appealed, arguing (1) Welfare & Institutions Code § 366.3(a) forbids termination when a relative guardian objects, and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 366.3(a) requires the court to retain dependency jurisdiction when a relative guardian objects | D.Y.: guardian objection makes retention mandatory; court lacked authority to terminate | Court/DCFS: statute gives the court discretion generally; guardian objection is an exception to the mandatory termination rule but does not absolutely forbid termination | Court rejects D.Y.’s reading; § 366.3(a) does not strip the juvenile court of discretion to terminate in such circumstances |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain missing DCFS information and allow parties to appear | D.Y.: continuance was reasonable and necessary because the RPP report lacked crucial education/orthodontia updates and parties were not notified of impending termination | Court/DCFS: case long-running; continuances discouraged in dependency cases; court viewed guardianship longstanding and closure appropriate | Court finds abuse of discretion: DCFS report was incomplete and D.Y. and guardian lacked adequate notice that jurisdiction might be terminated; reversal and remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Joshua S., 106 Cal.App.4th 1341 (discussed § 366.3(a) but treated as dicta)
- In re Grace C., 190 Cal.App.4th 1470 (court discretion to terminate dependency despite asserted "exceptional circumstances")
- In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (juvenile court’s parens patriae responsibility to child)
- In re C.H., 53 Cal.4th 94 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (authority on not following decisions of equal jurisdiction)