In Re Christina H.

182 Cal.App.3d 47 (1986) 227 Cal. Rptr. 41 In re CHRISTINA H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

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

v.

DENNIS H., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. B014342. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

June 6, 1986. [48] COUNSEL

William C. Spater, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Joe Ben Hudgens, Senior Deputy County Counsel, and Sterling R. Honea, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

KINGSLEY, Acting P.J.

In a dependency action, the father appeals an order terminating his joint custody of his daughter. We reverse.

[49] FACTS

Immediately following an acrimonious divorce proceeding, the mother of the minor herein moved to terminate the joint custody that the appellant, her recently divorced husband, had been awarded over their four-year-old daughter, Christina. The mother alleged that the father had sexually molested Christina and a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivisions (a) and (d), to declare the daughter a dependent child. After hearing the evidence, which consisted almost entirely of the testimony of Christina, the juvenile court sustained the petition, terminating the father's joint custody and denying him visitation rights until he participated in counseling. The father appeals, contending chiefly that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

I

The threshold issue to be addressed here is whether a parent is entitled to effective assistance of counsel at a dependency hearing. The respondent, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, cites In re Michael S. (1981) 127 Cal. App.3d 348, 364 [179 Cal. Rptr. 546], an opinion by Division One of this district for the proposition that a parent is not. That opinion reasoned that dependency cases are civil in nature, that there is no right to competent counsel in a civil case and that, therefore, there is no right to effective assistance of counsel in a dependency hearing. While admirably succinct, this holding greatly oversimplifies the issues involved.