Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services v. Castell

[790]Opinion

FILES, J. Following a hearing before a referee, the juvenile court made orders determining that George, 15 years of age, and his sister Eva, 13 years of age, were dependent children of the court under subdivision (a) of section 600 of the Welfare and Institutions. Code.1 The children were then placed in the home of a maternal aunt on a trial basis, both parents to have a right of reasonable visitation. The mother of the children is appealing from the orders adjudicating dependency.

Prior to the hearing before the referee, and again in connection with a petition for a rehearing, the mother asked the court to appoint counsel for her upon the ground that she was indigent. Both requests were denied.

The record discloses the unfortunate situation of a mother who was ill, existing on relief, without the help of the father or any other male, unable to cope with two active teenagers. The children initiated the proceeding by asking their social worker for help. The mother suffered from epilepsy, she had been treated for cancer and had been hospitalized many times. She was heavily dependent upon a variety of drugs which had been prescribed for her. The children had been so concerned over her use of nembutal sleeping pills that they would hide the pills from her.

The children’s father, who had never married the mother, was in court and made a statement. It appeared he had not seen the children for four years.

The evidence adequately supports the finding of the court that the welfare of the children required that their custody be taken from appellant.

We cannot agree with the implication of appellant’s brief that a different decision might have been made if she had had the aid of counsel in the trial court. Undoubtedly with counsel in the case the record would have been different. But the social worker’s report indicates that an even stronger showing could have been made concerning appellant’s disability. Both parents told the court that what the children needed was discipline. It is apparent that appellant was in no condition to provide it.

Appellant’s principal contention now is that she was entitled to the [791]