California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 2016 No. D069048Unpublished
Filed 4/29/16 In re Christian A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re CHRISTIAN A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D069048 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ14844) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHAD A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael
Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Chad A., in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Chad A. (Father) appeals a judgment declaring his son, Christian A., a dependent
of the juvenile court, removing Christian from his custody, and awarding sole legal and
physical custody to Christian's mother, Jennifer A. (Mother). Father contends the
juvenile court did not have personal jurisdiction over him and Christian because they are
registered business entities in the state of Minnesota, not people, and no contract exists
between them and the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the
The juvenile court obtains personal jurisdiction over a parent when the individual
is properly noticed. (In re Daniel S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 903, 916 (Daniel S.).)
Parents are entitled to due process notice of juvenile court proceedings affecting the care
and custody of their children and the absence of due process notice to a parent is a "fatal
defect" in the juvenile court's jurisdiction. (In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 688, 689.)
Due process requires "notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to
present their objections." (In re Melinda J. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1413, 1418 (Melinda
J.).) The means employed to give a party notice for due process purposes " 'must be such
as one, desirous of actually informing the absentee, might reasonably adopt to accomplish
it.' " (In re Antonio F. (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 440, 450.)
Here, Father does not dispute that he was aware of the proceedings. Rather, he
claims defects in jurisdiction due to his and Christian's names being registered as
business entities. Whether or not the names are registered business entities does not
defeat jurisdiction. Similarly, whether a contract existed between the Agency and those
business entities is irrelevant to jurisdiction. The juvenile court had jurisdiction over
Christian because he was a child described in section 300, subdivision (b). Significantly,
the juvenile court assumes dependency jurisdiction over a child; it does not take
jurisdiction over the parents. (Daniel S., supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 916.) Thus, Father
4
is mistaken to the extent he claims that the juvenile court was required to have personal
jurisdiction over him to begin the dependency proceedings.
As to Father, there is ample evidence in the record regarding notice. A social
worker called Father to inform him of the detention hearing. Thereafter, the court clerk
served Father with the petition and detention hearing minute order by mailing those
documents to the Oceanside address Father had provided in an e-mail to a social worker.
The detention hearing minute order notified Father of the jurisdictional hearing. Father
does not contend the address was incorrect. Further, a social worker called Father after
the detention hearing and informed him of the date, time and location of the upcoming
jurisdictional hearing. Due process required notice reasonably calculated to apprise
Father of the action and afford him an opportunity to present his objections. (Melinda J.,
supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 1418.) Based on our review of the record, due process was
satisfied in this case and we find no jurisdictional defect.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McINTYRE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the juvenile court properly exercised dependency jurisdiction over the child under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 and that the father received constitutionally sufficient notice of the proceedings.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because the father and child are registered business entities rather than persons.
Whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a contract between the parties.
Whether the father was provided with sufficient due process notice of the dependency proceedings.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The juvenile court assumes dependency jurisdiction over a child; it does not take jurisdiction over the parents.”
“Whether or not the names are registered business entities does not defeat jurisdiction.”