R.I. v. Superior Court CA2/4
B309756
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- Three children (ages 6, 5, and infant when case began) removed after sustained section 300 petition alleging parental marijuana use, homelessness, and failure to obtain needed services.
- Parents initially received reunification services; father’s participation was sporadic and then ceased after his July 2019 conviction and 16‑year state prison sentence.
- Juvenile court granted reunification services to father while incarcerated and set a series of review hearings; Department recommended termination at the 12‑month review for all three children.
- Father was housed in out‑of‑county state prisons for most of the reunification period; Department workers made multiple written and institutional inquiries and attempted to arrange telephonic contact and monitored phone visits.
- On Dec. 18, 2020, father did not call into the hearing and an LMI reported he told a prison counselor he would not participate unless he could hire private counsel and that he had a “bad experience” with appointed counsel. Father’s counsel requested a continuance to hold a Marsden hearing; the court denied the continuance, terminated reunification services, and set section 366.26 hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to hold a Marsden hearing | Father: the LMI showed he wanted new counsel (Marsden) so continuance was good cause under §352 | Court/Dept: father’s statements sought private counsel and did not allege appointed counsel was inadequate or request substitution; no entitlement to Marsden | Denial not an abuse of discretion — remarks showed desire to retain private counsel, not a claim of ineffective appointed counsel, so no Marsden duty |
| Whether termination of reunification services was unsupported because Department failed to provide reasonable services while father was incarcerated | Father: Department’s contact and efforts were sparse and insufficient while he was in state prison | Department: made reasonable, good‑faith efforts (letters, institutional inquiries, arranging phone visits, ensuring telephonic hearing access) | Substantial evidence supports finding Department offered reasonable reunification services and made reasonable efforts; termination upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970) (court must allow defendant to explain basis for replacing appointed counsel and hold hearing if inadequate representation is alleged)
- People v. Lara, 86 Cal.App.4th 139 (2001) (Marsden hearing required only when substitution or specific claim of inadequate performance is asserted)
- In re Giovanni F., 184 Cal.App.4th 594 (2010) (review of continuance denial for abuse of discretion; no error where request aimed at retaining new counsel rather than asserting appointed counsel ineffective)
- Mark N. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 996 (1998) (when parent is incarcerated, Department must make reasonable efforts to determine whether services can be provided and make good‑faith efforts during reunification)