Z.B. v. L.B.
198 Cal. App. 4th 1235
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- H.C., a 16-year-old, was placed with her brother Z.B. and his wife Heather B. as guardians over L.B.’s objection.
- CPS involvement arose after H.C. reported sexual abuse by Steven M. and L.B.’s drug use; CPS recommended guardianship or foster care.
- Z.B. and Heather filed permanent guardianship petitions; L.B. consented to a temporary arrangement via a nonbinding safety plan.
- The court initially denied temporary guardianship due to nonappearance at hearings, later reversing and appointing guardians.
- The court denied L.B. appointed counsel, but granted guardianship after trial based on evidence of H.C.’s detriment under L.B.’s care.
- ICWA notice compliance was later identified as insufficient, prompting a limited reversal for ICWA compliance on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether L.B. had a due process right to counsel in guardianship | L.B. asserts Lassiter requires appointed counsel in custody-impact proceedings | Guardianship proceedings are private and do not threaten parental liberty to the same extent as dependency | No per se right to counsel; due process depends on case-by-case Mathews-Lassiter balancing; in this case, no right to counsel |
| Whether the court complied with §1513 and required CPS report | L.B. argues the absence of a separate written CPS report violated §1513(c) | Investigation and court investigator's report sufficed to comply with §1513; no prejudice shown | Compliance satisfied; lack of separate written report did not prejudice the proceedings |
| Whether ICWA notice was properly provided | ICWA notice was inadequate | Proceedings were compliant aside from notice; no tribal response indicated | Remanded for limited ICWA notice; otherwise guardianship order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process analysis for appointment of counsel in custody cases depends on Mathews factors)
- Guardianship of Ann S., 45 Cal.4th 1110 (Cal. 2009) (recognizes private vs. state role and conditions for visitation; not automatic rights to counsel in guardianship)
- In re Sade C., 13 Cal.4th 952 (Cal. 1996) (develops Lassiter-based framework for guardianship/due process)