S.F. v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2025) · DecisionDepot
S.F. v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 2025 No. E085980Unpublished
Filed 4/29/25 S.F. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
S.F.,
Petitioner, E085980
v. (Super.Ct.No. J304196)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN OPINION BERNARDINO COUNTY,
Respondent;
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Annemarie G. Pace,
Judge. Petition granted.
Thomas E. Shinton, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel, for
Real Party in Interest.
1
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order directing the
Juvenile Division of the San Bernardino County Superior Court (respondent court) to
conduct a jurisdictional hearing within 15 judicial days as required by Welfare and
Institutions Code1 that includes the taking of evidence. This court invited a response
from respondent court and real party in interest San Bernardino County Department of
Children and Family Services (RPI) on an expedited basis, notifying the parties that we
were considering issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance pursuant to Palma v. U.S.
Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178 (Palma). Having received and
considered RPI’s response, along with the petition and exhibits filed by petitioner, we
determine it appropriate to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Minor child J.A. was removed from petitioner’s custody via a detention warrant,
and a dependency petition alleging abuse of J.A. by petitioner was filed in respondent
court. A detention hearing was held on April 14, 2025, at which time petitioner denied
the allegations in the petition and filed written objections to a jurisdictional hearing being
set any later than the statutory timeframe set forth in section 334. The juvenile court set a
jurisdictional hearing for May 5, 2025, in compliance with the statute, and petitioner
requested that the social worker involved in the case be available on that date to testify.
The court told petitioner that it would only “ ‘receive the social worker’s report regarding
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
jurisdiction’ ” on that date, and indicated the hearing would not be a contested or
evidentiary hearing. Petitioner formally objected to the court’s designation of May 5 as a
non-evidentiary hearing date, then sought relief in this court. Petitioner was not able to
obtain a copy of the transcripts of the hearing prior to filing the petition, but her counsel
submitted a declaration fairly setting forth the proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.486(b).) Although RPI does not affirm or concede the facts as set forth, it assumes
them to be a true and accurate representation of the events that occurred.
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, we find a petition for writ of mandate may be used to raise a
claim that the juvenile court failed to hold a timely hearing pursuant to section 300. (See
Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238 (Jeff M.); Renee S. v. Superior
Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 187 (Renee S.).) Recognizing that peremptory writs in the
first instance are to be used sparingly, and only in cases where a petitioner’s right to relief
is clear and the accelerated procedures set forth in Palma are necessary, we conclude
such relief is appropriate here, as petitioner’s claim states a prima facie case, the nature of
the claim necessitates that we act with urgency and there is no adequate remedy at law.
(Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; Jeff M., at pp. 1239-1240.)
Next, in considering the petition on its merits, it appears some form of relief is
required. Section 334 states that where a minor has been detained in custody, the
hearing on the petition “must be set . . . within 15 judicial days from the date of the
order . . . directing such detention.” (§ 334.) In this case, the juvenile court set a
3
jurisdictional hearing for May 5, 2025, within the statutory timeframe. However, there is
no dispute that respondent court indicated to the parties that it would only receive the
social worker’s report and would not take any testimonial evidence at the May 5th
hearing.
That the jurisdictional hearing was intended to be an evidentiary hearing is
supported by the language of section 355. That provision directs the juvenile court at a
jurisdictional hearing to “first consider only the question whether the minor is a person
described in section 300.” It further states that “[a]ny legally admissible evidence that is
relevant to the circumstances or acts that are alleged to bring the minor within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court is admissible and may be received in evidence.” (§ 355,
subd. (a).) The report prepared by the county welfare office is admissible, and the person
who prepared the report “shall be made available for cross-examination upon a timely
request by a party.” (§ 355, subd. (b)(2).)
Here, petitioner made a timely request to elicit testimony from the social worker at
the jurisdictional hearing, but the court indicated it would not take evidence. Thus, the
May 5th hearing set by the court was in effect a status-type hearing rather than the
required evidentiary jurisdictional hearing.
Clearly, as RPI argues, the juvenile court has the power to control its proceedings
and has discretion under section 352 to continue a jurisdictional hearing upon a finding of
good cause. (Renee S., supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pp. 193-194; §§ 350, 352.) We also
recognize that a good cause showing may be made on May 5th allowing the court to
4
continue the hearing without taking evidence. Absent such a showing, though, the
juvenile court’s discretion is limited by statutory time constraints. (Renee S., at p. 193.)
In this case, there is no indication the court’s setting of a non-evidentiary hearing on
May 5th, with the apparent intent of continuing the hearing to another date at which
evidence would be presented, was based on any finding of good cause.
As other courts before us have recognized, we understand that juvenile courts “are
overworked and doing their best to juggle ever-increasing caseloads while suffering grossly
inadequate resources.” (Jeff M., supra, 56 Cal.App.4t at p. 1243; see Renee S., supra, 76
Cal.App.4th at pp. 195-197.) However, given the importance of resolving dependency
proceedings quickly, the law provides little flexibility.
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to conduct a
jurisdictional hearing on May 5, 2025, that is consistent with section 355 and this
opinion, unless the court finds good cause to continue the hearing as set forth in
section 352. All parties shall bear their own costs.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
McKINSTER J.
RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The juvenile court must conduct a jurisdictional hearing that allows for the presentation of evidence and cross-examination of the social worker, as required by statute, unless a finding of good cause justifies a continuance.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court erred by designating a jurisdictional hearing as a non-evidentiary status hearing rather than an evidentiary hearing as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 355.
Disposition. Petition granted.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the May 5th hearing set by the court was in effect a status-type hearing rather than the required evidentiary jurisdictional hearing.”
“the juvenile court’s discretion is limited by statutory time constraints.”
“Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to conduct a jurisdictional hearing on May 5, 2025, that is consistent with section 355”