In Re Robinson

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 1970 No. Docket Nos. 35145-35149Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there is no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel in dependency proceedings, that notice requirements for minors under 14 are constitutionally sufficient, and that the burden of proof rests on the parent to show cause for terminating dependency status.

Issues

Whether parents or children have a right to appointed counsel in dependency proceedings.
Whether Welfare and Institutions Code section 658 violates due process by not requiring notice to minors under 14 in dependency cases.
Whether the court's findings were supported by evidence and complied with statutory requirements.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel for either parent or child in a proceeding in which the dependency status of the child is the issue.”

8 Cal.App.3d 783 (1970) 87 Cal. Rptr. 678 In re MICHAEL DOUGLAS ROBINSON et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LELAND C. CARTER, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

CONSTANCE KAUFMAN, Defendant and Appellant. (Five Cases.)

Docket Nos. 35145-35149. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.

June 15, 1970. [785] COUNSEL

Roy Dankman for Defendant and Appellant.

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

OPINION

FLEMING, J.

Constance Kaufman, on behalf of herself and her five minor children, appeals a juvenile court order of 17 October 1968 which renewed the status of four of her children as dependents of the court and terminated the dependency status of the fifth child, Michael Robinson. The original order of dependency had been entered in 1963 on the ground that Constance was emotionally disturbed and incapable of providing proper care and supervision for her children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 600, subd. (a).) Thereafter, the dependency order was renewed annually as required by statute. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 729.)

Present at the hearing on 17 October 1968 were appellant Constance, her son Michael, Michael's father Douglas Robinson, Thomas McGurrin (attorney for Douglas Robinson and Michael), and a probation officer who represented the four younger children between the ages of 5 and 10. The court heard Michael testify that he was happy living with his father, and it considered reports on the progress of the children prepared by the probation officer and by a social worker. Thereafter, the court terminated Michael's dependency status and continued in effect the dependency status of the four other children.

(1) 1. Appellant contends the proceedings were defective because neither she nor her children were furnished the services of appointed counsel to which they were entitled under the federal and state Constitutions and under sections 634, 679, 700, and 729 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In Re Robinson

AI Brief

OPINION

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief