Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. H.W.
197 Cal. App. 4th 723
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- T.W. and S.W. were detained in September 2009 after a spousal‑abuse incident involving the father, with mother having a long history of illicit drug use and prior dependency involvement of older children.
- Despite mother’s relapse admitted during the investigation, the children were released to mother and she agreed to treatment; she attended some services but remained inconsistent and resisted inpatient options.
- The Department recommended no reunification services due to ongoing noncompliance and drug use; jurisdiction was established in December 2009 on grounds mother’s drug use placed children at risk.
- Mother failed two random drug tests in December 2009; the children were placed with paternal grandparents seeking adoption.
- The disposition on December 28, 2009 denied reunification services and set a 366.26 hearing; the clerk mailed writ advisement to mother’s address but without ZIP code.
- A permanency hearing held November 2, 2010 resulted in termination of parental rights after finding the children were adoptable and no statutory exceptions applied, with mother not present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the writ petition requirement can be challenged on appeal despite advisement defects | Mother contends she was not properly advised due to missing ZIP code. | Notice was effectively received; no good cause shown to relax writ requirement. | No good cause; appeal from setting order dismissed. |
| Whether incorrect ZIP code in advisement invalidates notice and preserves rights | Incomplete notice should excuse timely writ petition. | Address was correct; no proof of actual nonreceipt; not harmless error here. | Not sufficient to excuse writ requirement; no right preserved to appeal. |
| Whether failure to review jurisdictional findings on appeal is waived when dispositional order is appealable | Challenge to jurisdictional findings should be allowed on appeal from dispositional order. | Dispositional order is the first appealable order and requires writ review for these issues. | Challenge waived; review limited to writ petition, which was not properly pursued. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Athena P., 103 Cal.App.4th 617 (Cal. App. Dist. 2002) (jurisdictional challenge must be raised on appeal from dispositional order; writ review otherwise)
- In re Lauren Z., 158 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Cal. App. Dist. 2008) (notice defects may permit writ review of setting order)
- In re Maria S., 82 Cal.App.4th 1032 (Cal. App. Dist. 2000) (agency and court failures to advise may allow writ review)
- In re Rashad B., 76 Cal.App.4th 442 (Cal. App. Dist. 1999) (addressing notice errors attributable to court actions)
- In re Cathina W., 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (Cal. App. Dist. 1998) (notice defects due to court error can excuse failure to file writ)
- Jennifer T. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.4th 254 (Cal. App. Dist. 2007) (proper writ advisement can permit challenges to setting orders)
- In re Frank R., 192 Cal.App.4th 532 (Cal. App. Dist. 2011) (absence of writ rights notice may be excused in some contexts)
- In re Alice M., 161 Cal.App.4th 1189 (Cal. App. Dist. 2008) (ICWA notice deficiencies not directly applicable to writ review here)
- Nicole K. v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. App. Dist. 2007) (notice to tribe must be effective; but here not controlling)
- Moghaddam v. Bone, 142 Cal.App.4th 283 (Cal. App. Dist. 2006) (correct ZIP required for notice; but not dispositive here)