211 Cal. App. 4th 896
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Office of Education challenges juvenile court order to initiate and fund the minor's placement; court lacked jurisdiction to direct funding.
- Minor, born 1996, became dependent in Alameda County, then Sacramento; multiple foster/group placements disrupted schooling.
- IEP/education services arranged through surrogate parent Sue L. after guardian struggle to participate.
- Court proceedings sought to determine which school district was responsible for funding/placement under Government Code ch. 26.5 and Welfare and Institutions Code §727.
- Court denied joinder of agencies, but ordered Office of Education to fund the minor's residential placement, prompting this appeal.
- On review, the appellate court reverses the order and remands to appoint a responsible adult under WIC §726.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal by Office of Education | OOE is directly affected; proper under Jeffrey M. | Almalik S. controls appealability only for minors/People | Office of Education has standing; appealable under law. |
| Authority of the juvenile court to issue an order against OOE without joinder | Denial of joinder deprives court of authority to bind OOE | Court can issue order based on current eligibility and IEP status | Court lacked authority to issue funding order without proper joinder; reversed. |
| Proper application of joinder under Welfare and Institutions Code §727 | Joinder needed to coordinate services; court erred in denying | No basis shown for agency to have failed to provide services; joinder improper | Joinder was improper; no basis to bind agencies; affects jurisdiction. |
| Need for appointment of a responsible adult under WIC §726 | Surrogate parent declined appointment; court must appoint another | No available party to appoint; issue not resolved | Remand to appoint a responsible adult under §726. |
| Remedy and final disposition | Order to fund placement was final against OOE | No final, proper party; proceeding inappropriate | Reverse the funding order; remand for proper appointment. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Almalik S., 68 Cal.App.4th 851 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (appeal rights in juvenile matters are statutory and limited by statute)
- In re Jeffrey M., 141 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (parents may appeal to protect their own interests despite §800 gaps)
- In re Michael S., 147 Cal.App.4th 1443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (restitution-related appeals permissible where affected party seeks review)
- Laraway v. Pasadena Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.4th 579 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (finality and reviewability of juvenile court orders)
- In re Jody R., 218 Cal.App.3d 1615 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (lack of jurisdiction principles when agency not joined)