In Re Rosalinda C.

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 1993 No. A055801Published

Before: Kline

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A juvenile court lacks the authority to dismiss dependency proceedings when the permanent plan is long-term placement rather than adoption or legal guardianship, as the court must maintain jurisdiction to ensure the child's welfare.

Issues

Whether a trial court may dismiss a dependency proceeding after ordering a long-term placement as the permanent plan.
Whether the evidence supported the conclusion that a legal guardianship or its equivalent had been established under Mexican law.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The governing statutes thus do not appear to authorize termination of all jurisdiction over a child even when a legal guardianship has been established, and certainly not when the child is in a long-term placement.”

“A juvenile court has a continuing responsibility to account for the welfare of a dependent child under its jurisdiction, wherever placed, unless and until a permanent and stable home is established.”

“On this record, dismissal of the dependency was premature.”

16 Cal.App.4th 273 (1993) 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 58 In re ROSALINDA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SONOMA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent,

ROSA P., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. A055801. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two.

June 3, 1993. [274] COUNSEL

Judith E. Ganz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

James P. Botz, County Counsel, and Tara Harvey, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[Opinion certified for partial publication.[*]]

OPINION

KLINE, P.J.

The chief question presented by this appeal is whether a trial court may dismiss a dependency proceeding after ordering a long-term placement as the permanent plan. In an unpublished portion of the opinion, we address the additional contention that the trial court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act despite indications in social workers' reports and in testimony that the act might apply.

[275] STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

Rosalinda C. was born on May 2, 1988, a 31- to 32-week premature infant weighing 3 pounds. Appellant, her mother, reported that the father, Juan C.,[1] lived in Mexico, was also the father of her older daughter, Alana, and had not been informed of Rosalinda's birth.

On May 9, 1988, a petition was filed in the Sonoma County Juvenile Court alleging that Rosalinda came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a), due to the presence of opiates in her bodily fluids, her mother's drug use and failure to obtain regular prenatal care, and her father's absence. Appellant admitted the allegations on May 31. Rosalinda was placed with appellant, who lived with her parents and sister, Julie Hernandez. A supplemental petition was subsequently sustained on January 3, 1989, and Rosalinda was detained in appellant's mother's home; after appellant's mother died suddenly in February, Rosalinda was placed with Hernandez, who was also caring for Alana.

In Re Rosalinda C.

AI Brief

OPINION

KLINE, P.J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief