County of Mendocino v. TED S.
Before: Strankman
Synopsis
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
Opinion
STRANKMAN, J.—
Appellant Ted S. appeals from an amended default judgment which declared him to be the natural father of Theodore S., a minor, and ordered him both to pay child support and to reimburse the County of Mendocino (the County) for public assistance previously provided to the minor. Among other arguments, appellant contends that reversal is required because the record includes no waiver of his right to counsel. We affirm the judgment.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
On June 8, 1987, a complaint was filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 11350 and 11350.1 alleging that appellant was the father of Theodore S., a minor born in May 1984, that appellant had failed to support his child, and that the County had furnished public assistance for the child for over three years. The complaint sought reimbursement for the public assistance, a child support order, and other related relief.
Included in the complaint was the following notice, in capital letters: “You Have Been Sued for Child Support. You Have a Right to Be Represented by an Attorney. If You Are Financially Unable to Pay for an Attorney, You Have a Right to Request the Court to Appoint One to Represent You.” Appellant was personally served with the complaint and summons. The summons warned, “You have 30 Calendar Days after this summons is served on you to file a typewritten response at this court, [fl] A letter or phone call will not protect you; your typewritten response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. [1J] If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money and property may be taken
[1205]
without further warning from the court. [1J]
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book).
(Italics added.)
Appellant did not file an answer or any other response. At the County’s request, default was entered on September 18; a hearing was set for October 16, 1987. Appellant attended the hearing, but was not permitted to speak. The court told appellant, “[Y]ou take this up with the district attorney’s office to see if there’s a problem here. . . . [fl] This is not the time to be bringing anything else up, so you can take this up with [the district attorney] and you can work it out if there’s a problem.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)