In Re CP

California Court of Appeal Mar 6, 1985 No. A025161Published

Before: King

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. It is reversible error for a juvenile court to fail to continue a jurisdictional hearing when appointed counsel has had insufficient time to contact an out-of-state parent and lacks authority to act on the client's behalf, as this denies the parent due process.

Issues

Whether a parent is denied due process when a jurisdictional hearing proceeds despite appointed counsel's inability to contact the client or prepare for the hearing.
Whether a court must grant a continuance under Welfare and Institutions Code section 353 even if counsel does not explicitly request one.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we hold it is reversible error to fail to continue the hearing where counsel for an out-of-state parent was appointed by the court two days prior to the hearing and, despite reasonable efforts, had been unable to make contact with his client”

“It is reversible error even in the absence of a request by counsel for a continuance, where counsel was clearly without authority to act on his client's behalf at the jurisdictional hearing.”

“Joe was denied his day in court on the jurisdictional issue.”

165 Cal.App.3d 270 (1985) 211 Cal. Rptr. 498 In re C.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN MATEO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

JOE P., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. A025161. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five.

March 6, 1985. [271] COUNSEL

David Nickerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

James P. Fox, District Attorney, and Carolee Houser, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

KING, J.

In this case, because due process requires that parents be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard at a jurisdictional hearing in juvenile court dependency proceedings, we hold it is reversible error to fail to continue the hearing where counsel for an out-of-state parent was appointed by the court two days prior to the hearing and, despite reasonable efforts, had been unable to make contact with his client, since this prevented counsel from acquainting himself with the case and conferring with his client in order to prepare for the hearing. It is reversible error even in the absence of a request by counsel for a continuance, where counsel was clearly without authority to act on his client's behalf at the jurisdictional hearing.

Joe P. appeals from an order declaring his child C.P. a dependent child of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) and from a subsequent disposition order. We reverse the jurisdictional order and remand the cause for a new jurisdictional hearing.

[272] A petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 alleged that on September 1, 1983, C.'s mother, Marcia D., was found lying on a sidewalk bleeding from a self-inflicted wound extending from her right wrist to her elbow. Marcia had left C., aged two, unattended during the suicide attempt. She had also exposed C. to a previous suicide attempt. Marcia required psychiatric hospitalization. The petition alleged that C.'s father, Joe, had failed to maintain a relationship with her or provide for her basic needs.

In Re CP

AI Brief

OPINION

KING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief