In Re George S.

California Court of Appeal Jul 19, 1971 No. Docket Nos. 37353, 37354Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there is no statutory or constitutional requirement to provide counsel for parents in dependency proceedings and that the preponderance of evidence standard is constitutionally sufficient for such adjudications.

Issues

Is a parent entitled to court-appointed counsel in a juvenile dependency proceeding?
Does the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of proof apply to juvenile dependency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 600?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the case stands as a square holding that there is no statutory or constitutional requirement that counsel be provided for a parent in a dependency case.”

“The civil standard of proof by a preponderance of evidence remains applicable to this dependency proceeding.”

18 Cal.App.3d 788 (1971) 96 Cal. Rptr. 203 In re GEORGE S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

BLANCHE R. CASTELL, Defendant and Appellant.

In re EVA S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

BLANCHE R. CASTELL, Defendant and Appellant. (Two Cases)

Docket Nos. 37353, 37354. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

July 19, 1971. [789] COUNSEL

Edward J. Owen, Thomas P. Burke, Morton M. Sider, Lauralea Trisler Saddick and Stuart Alan Chapman for Defendant and Appellant.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, and Harold S. Vites, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[790] OPINION

FILES, J.

Following a hearing before a referee, the juvenile court made orders determining that George, 15 years of age, and his sister Eva, 13 years of age, were dependent children of the court under subdivision (a) of section 600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] The children were then placed in the home of a maternal aunt on a trial basis, both parents to have a right of reasonable visitation. The mother of the children is appealing from the orders adjudicating dependency.

Prior to the hearing before the referee, and again in connection with a petition for a rehearing, the mother asked the court to appoint counsel for her upon the ground that she was indigent. Both requests were denied.

In Re George S.

AI Brief

FILES, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief