People v. R.G. (In re R.G.)
18 Cal. App. 5th 273
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Minor (b. Apr 2000) was a declared dependency (Welf. & Inst. Code §300) in 2013 due to parental abuse/neglect and had foster placements, mental health diagnoses, and school discipline history.
- In Oct 2016 the People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code §242) while Minor remained a dependent.
- At pretrial/disposition (Nov 22, 2016) the court refused to refer the matter to the county §241.1 joint committee before taking jurisdiction; Minor admitted the charge and was declared a ward and placed on formal probation and in CFS custody.
- The court later referred the case for a §241.1 assessment; the written joint §241.1 report was filed Dec 12, 2016 — 46 days after the petition and 20 days after the jurisdiction/disposition hearing — and was internally inconsistent and incomplete.
- The report lacked statutorily required elements: input from Minor’s counsel and CASA, educational and dependency records, and the committee’s full deliberation; the court also failed to state on the record its reasons for the §241.1 "dual status" determination.
- The appellate court reversed, finding the court erred by refusing a timely §241.1 assessment and by relying on an inadequate, untimely report; the errors were not harmless and remand was ordered for a complete §241.1 process.
Issues
| Issue | Minor's Argument | CFS/People's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by refusing to refer case for §241.1 assessment before jurisdiction/disposition | Court denied statutorily required assessment and deprived Minor of procedural protections; referral should occur before or contemporaneous with petition/jurisdiction | Process was acceptable; any error harmless because report was later filed and outcome would be same | Reversed: referral should have occurred prior to or contemporaneous with jurisdiction; failing to do so was error implicating due process |
| Timeliness of §241.1 report (rule 5.512 deadlines) | Report was filed too late (46 days after petition; after jurisdiction) in violation of timing rules | Late filing harmless because report ultimately considered | Held untimely; timing violated rule 5.512 and was not harmless given due process implications |
| Adequacy of the §241.1 report (required content and consultations) | Report lacked required statements from minor’s counsel and CASA, lacked educational/dependency records, and appeared coerced | Minor forfeited challenge or error harmless because record supports dual-status outcome | Held report statutorily inadequate and likely influenced by court’s prior determination; inadequacy not harmless |
| Failure to state reasons on record for §241.1 dual-status decision | Court failed to state reasons as required by rule 5.512(g); objection would have been futile | Forfeiture for failing to object below; any error harmless | Held error: court failed to state reasons; objection would have been futile and appellate review permitted; error not harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.V., 225 Cal. App. 4th 1495 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describing §241.1 assessment requirements, rule 5.512 timing and content demands)
- In re Ray M., 6 Cal. App. 5th 1038 (Cal. Ct. App.) (due process and notice required for §241.1 determinations; improper procedure can be reversible)
- D.M. v. Superior Court, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1117 (Cal. Ct. App.) (analyzing when §241.1 assessment is required and harmless-error framework)
- Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Fam. Servs. v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. App. 4th 320 (Cal. Ct. App.) (section 241.1 determination must be made promptly)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal. 2d 818 (Cal.) (harmless-error standard in criminal context referenced for comparison)