In re Jason P.
Filed 3/22/07 In re Jason P. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re JASON P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VERONICA P., Defendant and Appellant. | E041140 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ109470) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Michael C. Puentes, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jacquelyn E. Gentry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Objector and appellant Veronica P. (mother) is the natural mother of Jason P. (the child). Mother appeals after the juvenile court terminated her parental rights to the child. Mother contends the termination order must be reversed because she did not receive notice of the termination hearing. We affirm.
FACTS
Mother was herself a dependent child of the juvenile court, placed with her mother (the maternal grandmother) under family maintenance services. Mother was 14 years old when she gave birth to the child in 2004. Mother, residing in the maternal grandmothers home, took care of the child for a few months before she ran away from home, leaving the child with the maternal grandmother.
The maternal grandmother notified the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), reporting that mother was using drugs and staying with her adult boyfriend. Mother was also not attending school. The maternal grandmother expressed a willingness to care for the child, but the social worker removed him from the home and placed him in an emergency shelter. The attorney appointed for mother gave notice that mothers address was the same as the maternal grandmothers residence address. Notice of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was mailed to the attorney and to mothers address on February 24, 2005. Notice of continuance of the contested hearing was mailed on March 24, 2005.
Mother attended the continued contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on May 3, 2005, but the hearing was again continued at the request of DPSS. Mother did, however, sign a waiver of her rights at that time, and elected to admit the allegations of the petition. Mother did not attend the continued hearing on May 23, 2005, but her waiver was filed and the juvenile court found true the allegations of the petition.
The social worker reported in the interim that mother had been found and she had been placed in a group home. She ran away from the group home on numerous occasions, however.
In September 2005, notice of a six-month review hearing was mailed to mother at the maternal grandmothers (mothers last known) address. Mother had been absent from the group home since May 2005. Mothers attorney appeared at the noticed hearing and requested a contested hearing. Notice of the continued contested hearing was mailed to mothers last known address on October 27, 2005. The social workers report recommended terminating reunification services, as mother had run away and had failed to participate in any aspect of her case plan. The social worker recommended setting a selection and implementation hearing within 120 days.
Mother did not attend the six-month review hearing. The maternal grandmother did attend. The court terminated mothers reunification services and set a contested selection and implementation hearing. The court ordered DPSS to undertake a parent locator search for mother, and authorized notice by publication if the parent locator search were unsuccessful.
Notice of the selection and implementation hearing was mailed to mother at a confidential address on November 17, 2005. A second notice, mailed on February 17, 2006, noted that mothers address was unknown. Notice to mother was published on four dates in January 2006. Mother did not appear at the noticed hearing in March 2006, but the maternal grandmother did attend. At that time, DPSS requested a continuance. The court granted the continuance, but dispensed with further notice to mother.
The maternal grandmother reported later that mother had contacted her, and offered to turn herself in to her group home unit social worker and submit to placement. The maternal grandmother did not appear to know where mother was, and mother did not contact DPSS.
Notice of a review hearing was mailed to mother at a confidential address on April 26, 2006, however, so it appears that DPSS did have some address for mother at that time. In June 2006, mother did report to her social worker, and received a placement in a group home. Mother had been absent for over a year at that point, with no contact with DPSS or her own social worker. The DPSS social worker explained to mother in a telephone call that the recommendation was to terminate mothers parental rights, and that the child had been placed in a prospective adoptive home. The DPSS social worker informed mother of the date of the hearing and encouraged her to attend. Mother repeated back the date and time of the hearing so the social worker knew that she had understood.
The contested selection and implementation hearing came on for hearing on July 13, 2006. Mother and the maternal grandmother were both present. The court continued the hearing and ordered mother to appear at the continued hearing without further notice.
Mother was present at the continued hearing, on August 7, 2006. Mother was sworn and testified on her own behalf at the selection and implementation hearing. The court heard testimony, received evidence, and made findings. The court found that the child was adoptable, selected adoption as the permanent plan, and terminated mothers parental rights.
Mother now appeals.
DISCUSSION
1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The sum and substance of mothers contention of error on appeal is that notice to her of the selection and implementation hearing was defective, because notice was not also given to the maternal grandmother. Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 294, subdivision (a)(5) requires notice of the selection and implementation hearing to be sent to the grandparents of the dependent minor under certain circumstances, i.e., if the whereabouts of the parent are unknown, and the address of the grandparents is known.
The standard of prejudice for such claims of error involving due process notice is the Chapman prejudice standard (Chapman v.California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24) of harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Angela C. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 389, 391, 395.)
2.
THE LACK OF NOTICE TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER
WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
As noted, under the circumstances here, section 294, subdivision (a)(5) required notice of the selection and implementation hearing to be sent to the maternal grandmother. Such notice was not given. Mother argues, relying on In re Steven H. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1023, that this failure is reversible error.
Mothers reliance on Steven H. is misplaced. It is wholly distinguishable. The purpose for requiring notice to the grandparents is, as there stated, the required notification to grandparents is intended, at least in part, to facilitate notice to the absent parent, as the grandparents may have resources for locating the parents that are unavailable to SSA. (In re Steven H., supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 1032.) As the court also noted, [g]randparent notification is only required when direct parental notification cannot be achieved, thus pointing to the primary purpose as providing an additional opportunity or resource for getting notice to the absent parent. (Id. at p. 1033.) There, the grandparent had not been notified of the setting of the selection and implementation hearing at all. Here, the maternal grandmother was present at the hearing setting the selection and implementation hearing. There was no evidence that either the parent or the grandparent in Steven H. had received actual notice of the hearing. Here, the evidence was plain that both mother and the maternal grandmother had actual notice: mother in fact appeared at the hearing in July 2006 and at the continued hearing in August 2006, where she actually presented testimony on her own behalf.
Mother cannot show any conceivable prejudice from the failure to mail notice to the maternal grandmother, inasmuch as mother herself had received actual notice in advance of the hearing, she attended the hearing and the continued hearing, and she prepared her case and presented evidence in her own behalf.
DISPOSITION
The failure to notify the grandparent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The order terminating mothers parental rights is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKINSTER
Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/ KING
J.
/s/ MILLER
J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
