Orange County Social Services Agency v. Angela B.

Opinion

WALLIN, J.

Christine and Leonard B., foster parents and de facto parents of Joshua B., appeal the order of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388

1

returning Joshua to the custody of his biological mother, Angela B., and continuing dependency under a family maintenance plan. We find substantial evidence supports the court’s order and affirm. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude we are not required to appoint counsel for an indigent parent who is a respondent, but we retain discretion to do so.

I-III

*

IV

Although we appointed appellate counsel for Angela, we questioned, on our own motion, whether we are

required

to do so when an indigent parent of a dependent child is the respondent rather than the appellant. We conclude we are not required to appoint counsel in such a situation, but our discretion to do so will be liberally exercised.

[1679]

The Supreme Court has recently dealt with the question of appointed counsel for a respondent parent in a nondependency case in

In re Bryce C.

(1995) 12 Cal.4th 226 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 120, 906 P.2d 1275]. There, the stepfather petitioned to free the child from the biological father’s custody and control on the grounds of abandonment (Fam. Code, § 7800 et seq.) The trial court found no abandonment, and the stepfather appealed. The Court of Appeal denied the biological father’s request for appointed counsel, finding he was not entitled to appointed appellate counsel under Family Code section 7895. The Supreme Court held an indigent respondent whose parental rights have not been terminated is not entitled to appointed counsel “as of right,” but the appellate courts retain discretion to appoint counsel where parental rights are at stake.