Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jonathan A.
235 Cal. App. 4th 754
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Petition (2008) alleged D.A. and Z.S. at risk under WC §300; father resided with paternal grandparents then address inconsistencies; DCFS provided reunification services; multiple hearings addressed visitation, placements, and eventual termination of reunification; K.A. joined as presumed child of father with independent petitions; by 2011–2012 children placed with maternal grandmother and later with prospective adoptive parents; notice issues regarding service to father persisted; March 12, 2013 termination of parental rights was issued and adoptions finalized September 19, 2013; appeals filed by father and maternal grandmother were dismissed for untimeliness and lack of standing; appellate court held no jurisdiction over untimely appeal and no collateral attack on adoption order
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from March 12, 2013 order | Father argues lack of notice invalidated the order | None stated beyond timely filing concerns | Appeal untimely; court has no jurisdiction |
| Constructive filing doctrine applicability | Father seeks constructive filing due to incarceration | Constructive filing not available in dependency terminations | Doctrine does not apply; untimely filing stands |
| Collateral attack on March 12, 2013 order via September 2013 adoption appeal | Father seeks to challenge termination indirectly through adoption appeal | Meranda/WA rules bar collateral attacks on final termination orders | Collateral attack barred; adoption appeal dismissed for lack of standing and finality |
| Notice and fundamental jurisdiction | Executive assumption of improper notice could void proceedings | Fundamental jurisdiction remains; procedural defects do not void order; notice proper or harmless if challenged belatedly | Not a lack of fundamental jurisdiction; any notice defect harmless or waivable |
| Standing to appeal for maternal grandfather/maternal grandmother and father | Maternal grandmother seeks review of termination and adoption | Grandmother lacks standing as aggrieved party; father lacks standing to challenge adoption order | No standing; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Meranda P., 56 Cal.App.4th 1143 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (collateral attack barred; finality of termination orders; adoption context)
- In re Alyssa H., 22 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (constructive filing not available in termination proceedings)
- In re Darlice C., 105 Cal.App.4th 459 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (collateral attack prohibited; final termination order review restrictions)
- In re Jasmine G., 127 Cal.App.4th 1109 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (structural notice defect requiring automatic reversal only for total notice failures)
- In re Angel S., 156 Cal.App.4th 1202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (fundamental vs. nonfundamental jurisdiction; notice issues context)
- In re Phillip F., 78 Cal.App.4th 250 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (notice implications and continuation of hearings; inference of actual notice permissible)
- Adoption of Alexander S., 44 Cal.3d 857 (Cal. 1988) (habeas corpus not available to collaterally attack final nonmodifiable judgment in adoption context)
- In re Issac J., 4 Cal.App.4th 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (collateral attack considerations in dependency/adoption)