AKKIKO M. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 11, 1985 No. A027068Published

Before: Scott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a minor in dependency proceedings has a right to choose their own counsel, but the trial court must first determine if the minor is competent to make that choice and if the chosen counsel is competent to represent the minor's interests.

Issues

Does a minor in a juvenile dependency proceeding have an unqualified right to choose their own counsel under Welfare and Institutions Code section 349?
Does a guardian ad litem have exclusive authority to control litigation and select counsel for an abused or neglected minor?
What is the trial court's duty when a minor seeks to substitute appointed counsel with counsel of their own choice?

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the court erred in barring representation by counsel of the minor’s choice without first ruling that the minor was not capable of choosing or did not select competent counsel.”

“The court must permit substitution of counsel if it is satisfied that the minor is competent to select counsel and that counsel is prepared to meet the obligations imposed by section 318.”

[527]

Opinion

SCOTT, Acting P. J.

This petition by a minor dependent of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300)

challenges an order “recusing” Legal Services for Children, Inc., from representing her without charge in proceedings concerning her education and treatment, We conclude that the court erred in barring representation by counsel of the minor’s choice without first ruling that the minor was not capable of choosing or did not select competent counsel.

Petitioner’s first contact with juvenile court occurred in 1978, when a petition was granted, declaring her a dependent child of the court, as one whose home was unfit because of “neglect, cruelty, depravity, or physical abuse.” (§ 300, subd. (d).) At that time she was entitled to appointment of counsel (§ 318, subd. (a)), but apparently was not separately represented. More recently, she was involved in court proceedings for voluntary commitment to a mental health facility (§ 6552) and proceedings to appoint a conservator (§ 5352). Legal Services for Children, Inc., a nonprofit law firm that represents minors without fee, was asked to advise her in connection with the former proceeding and was appointed to replace the public defender’s office in the latter proceeding. The voluntary commitment proceedings ended when the Department of Social Services (hereafter the Department) filed the conservatorship petition, and the conservatorship proceedings terminated with a jury verdict that petitioner was not gravely disabled.

During the conservatorship trial, petitioner was placed temporarily in foster care. After trial, the court ordered continuation of foster care pending a placement decision by the juvenile court. At that point, petitioner asked Legal Services for Children to take legal action to allow her to stay in foster care and to obtain an appropriate educational program. Counsel took steps to arrange an educational program and filed a motion to modify petitioner’s placement order to reflect her foster home placement. The Department agreed to continue the foster care.

While questions concerning petitioner’s education and treatment were pending, the Department determined that Legal Services for Children no longer represented petitioner and so advised petitioner, her foster parent, and Legal Services for Children. Legal Services for Children sought a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to prevent the Department from interfering with petitioner’s relationship with counsel. The Department

AKKIKO M. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief