In Re DJB

California Court of Appeal Jul 19, 1971 No. 27957Published

Before: Molinari

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A juvenile court commits prejudicial error by considering a social study or probation report prior to the jurisdictional hearing, and a single instance of a minor leaving home without consent is insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the minor is beyond parental control.

Issues

Does the review of a probation report or social study prior to the jurisdictional hearing constitute prejudicial error in juvenile proceedings?
Is a single instance of a minor leaving home without parental consent sufficient to support a finding that the minor is beyond parental control under Welfare and Institutions Code section 601?

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The review by the juvenile court of a probation report or social study prior to or during the jurisdictional hearing constitutes prejudicial error”

“a single instance of misbehavior cannot, as a matter of law, sustain a finding that appellant was a person who was beyond the control of her father.”

18 Cal.App.3d 782 (1971) 96 Cal. Rptr. 146 In re D.J.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

HIRSCH E. BAYES, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

D.J.B., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 27957. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

July 19, 1971. [783] COUNSEL

Paul Ligda, Public Defender, Jon P. Siegel and Robert E. Barnett, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Robert R. Granucci and Joyce F. Nedde, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MOLINARI, P.J.

This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court adjudging appellant a ward of the court and ordering that she be committed [784] to the custody of the probation officer for placement in a foster home or institution.

The adjudication made by the juvenile court was based on a petition alleging that appellant, a person under 21 years of age, came within the provisions of section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] in that she was beyond the control of her father, having left her father's home without his consent on or about September 12, 1969.[2]

At the jurisdictional hearing the following colloquy occurred between the court and the public defender representing appellant: "MR. LIGDA [public defender]: ... as to the petition, we will admit everything including the fact that on or about September 12, 1969, she left her father's home, but denies that allegation that as a matter of law she was beyond the control of her father. We would submit it on that. THE COURT: Well, admittedly, the allegation leaves a lot to be desired as far as any information for the court as far as the overall control or lack of control. But it does indicate that at least on September 12, 1969, she was beyond his control at that time. I am going to accept jurisdiction at this time. MR. LIGDA: The petition is sustained, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Let me read the report here, I may react differently in a moment." The court then considered the juvenile probation department's file, which included the probation officer's report and a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Normington of the Woodland Medical Clinic.

In Re DJB

AI Brief

OPINION

MOLINARI, P.J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief