Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. F.S.
218 Cal. App. 4th 337
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Two children were declared dependents under Welfare & Institutions Code §300; reunification services were later terminated and a section 366.26 (permanency/adoption) hearing was set.
- Parents (F.S. — mother; S.H. — father) repeatedly changed addresses; they had initially filed JV-140 notification forms listing a San Jose address; later filings and documents contained a different S. Market Street address.
- Parents left the 18-month review hearing before it concluded; the court set the section 366.26 hearing and the clerk mailed a JV-820/JV-825 "Notice of Intent to File Writ" packet to the parents’ last-known addresses. Mailings to both parents were returned as undeliverable or encountered service problems.
- Parents later filed various motions (judicial disqualification, §388 modification, motion to vacate default) and then appealed two rulings denying the motion to modify placement (§388) and denying mother’s motion to vacate a default judgment. Their appellate briefs raised additional complaints about the 18‑month review (lack of mailed/oral advisement of writ rights, ineffective/waived counsel, judge disqualification, insufficiency of reunification services).
- The juvenile court and appellate record show the court complied with rules requiring oral advisement at the hearing (parents left and thus missed it) and mailed the writ packet to the addresses on file; process-server attempts and later address-change filings indicated parents had not provided timely written change-of-address notices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to advise of writ requirement by mail/orally excuses failure to file a writ and permits appellate review of earlier orders | Parents: court failed to advise them properly (mail/oral), so writ requirement should be excused | Department: advisement and mailing to last-known addresses satisfied rule; parents failed to provide written address changes and left hearing before oral advisement | Held: No excusal. Clerk timely mailed JV-820/JV-825 to addresses on file; parents left the hearing before oral advisement and failed to timely notify court of new address, so writ requirement not excused and issues tied to the 18‑month review are not cognizable on this appeal |
| Validity of parents’ waivers of counsel / competency inquiry | Parents: court did not adequately inquire into competency and failed to obtain valid waivers for self-representation | Department: court conducted advisements, provided JV-2023 forms, and found waivers knowing and voluntary | Held: Court’s findings re: knowing, intelligent waivers supported in record; parenting-party competency/waiver arguments challenge earlier orders and are not cognizable on this appeal |
| Judicial disqualification (challenge to Judge Yew hearing 18‑month review) | Parents: Judge Yew should have been disqualified; prior challenge to another judge meant Yew shouldn’t hear matter | Department: peremptory and disqualification motions were untimely or otherwise procedurally defective; parents left hearing and filed belated challenges | Held: Parents’ post‑hearing challenges do not render later appeals cognizable; peremptory challenge denial is not an appealable order here; issues are not properly before the appellate court |
| Sufficiency of reunification services finding at 18‑month review | Parents: evidence did not support finding that reasonable services were provided | Department: record shows services were offered and court found them sufficient; challenge attacks the 18‑month order | Held: Challenge goes to an earlier final order for which appeal timeframe has passed; therefore not cognizable on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cathina W., 68 Cal. App. 4th 716 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to mail/re‑mail writ notice can excuse filing requirement)
- In re Rashad B., 76 Cal. App. 4th 442 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court’s failure to obtain permanent mailing address and give notice can excuse filing a writ)
- In re S.B., 46 Cal. 4th 529 (Cal.) (unchallenged dispositional/postdisposition orders are final; later appeals cannot attack them)
- Jennifer T. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal. App. 4th 254 (Cal. Ct. App.) (remedy for failure to advise of writ rights is limited; appellate relief constrained by statutory framework)
- Merrick V., 122 Cal. App. 4th 235 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses appellate treatment when juvenile court fails to advise of writ requirement)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (Cal.) (procedures for raising complaints about appointed counsel and Marsden hearings)