Opinion
E039932
4-27-2007
ROBERT W., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MORENO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents
Linda M. Fabian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Objector and appellant Robert W. (father) is the natural father of Cherry W. (the child). Father filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 requesting a copy of a police report concerning the child. The juvenile court denied the petition and father now appeals.
FACTS
Apparently, in approximately September 2005, the Moreno Valley Police Department investigated allegations that the child, 15 years old, had been the victim of alleged child abuse or endangerment. Father states in his brief that no juvenile dependency petition was filed in the superior court in the matter; the court file below consists solely of fathers petition and his notice of appeal. In any case, father filed a petition under section 827, apparently seeking to obtain a copy of the police report. Fathers petition identified the police report by number in the district attorneys records, and gave the following reasons for the request:
"1. For my records and so that we can have a hard copy to show other agencies involved in my child custody case from Hell. 2. Because she is my 15 yr. old minor child who was the victim in this [Penal Code section 273a] report, who I get to visit 2 to 4 times a month & am actively involved in her life as her Dad. 3. And, this search for info has been going on since it happened last 9/21/05, which shouldnt have taken this long or been this difficult to obtain."
The court denied the petition with the annotation, "No good cause shown."
Father appeals the denial of his petition.
DISCUSSION
1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The decision to deny a request to view or obtain copies of confidential juvenile records is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 231.)
2.
FATHERS PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED
As father notes, law enforcement records pertaining to juveniles are generally confidential. (T.N.G. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 767, 778 (T.N.G.).) Access to confidential juvenile records, including law enforcement reports, is governed by section 827. (T.N.G., at pp. 780-781; Westcott v. Yuba County (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 103, 106-107.) Certain categories of persons are entitled to inspect such records without a court order, including court personnel, prosecutors, the minor who is the subject of a juvenile proceeding, and, most significantly here, the minors parents or guardian. (§ 827, subd. (a)(1)(D).) Other persons may view the records by juvenile court order, upon filing an appropriate petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.552(b).)
As the parent of the child, father was entitled to inspect the juvenile records without a court order. As father notes, he is not required to demonstrate "good cause" before he may inspect the records. But father here did not wish merely to inspect the records: he wanted to obtain a copy, and his petition disclosed that he wished to disseminate the confidential record to other agencies.
What section 827 provides for and protects is a parents right of inspection only. It does not include the right to copy the documents. (In re Gina S. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1083-1085.)
To obtain a copy, which is what father requested, good cause is required. It is the juvenile courts duty to protect the juveniles confidential information, and to that end it has broad discretion in controlling the release of confidential documents. (In re Keisha T., supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 232.)
Fathers petition failed to indicate the nature of the information contained in the police report or to articulate the purpose for which he sought it. It is unclear, for example, who was the person alleged to have committed the child abuse. Father stated he wanted to use the police report "to show other agencies in my child custody case from Hell." It is unclear what this means. Perhaps father wants to deflect accusations against himself which were investigated but were "unfounded" and went no further. Perhaps he wants to use the police report to accuse others. Fathers purpose is murky at best, and suggests purposeful dissemination of confidential facts relating to the child, at worst. He does not stand in the same position as the parent in In re Gina S., supra, 133 Cal.App.4th 1074, who had a legitimate claim to the invasion of her own privacy in the course of the dependency case. The documents the parent there sought could be redacted to exclude any reference to the child or the childs information, and to include only the factual matters relating to the parent herself. Here, fathers petition did not clearly articulate a proper purpose.
Father suggests that the court should have been required to inspect the document in camera and redact the childs private information. It is not the courts burden to show good cause to release the document, however. That burden rests squarely with father. If he needs to arrange to inspect the document first, which he has a statutory right to do, so that he may then articulate a proper purpose for obtaining the document, then that is what he should do. On the face of his present petition, however, he invoked not merely his statutory right to inspect the report, but he requested a copy, and stated that he intended to disseminate the confidential report to several unnamed agencies. This he may not do. (In re Tiffany G. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 443, 450.) The court did not abuse its discretion in denying this open-ended license to disseminate the childs confidential information.
DISPOSITION
The courts order denying fathers petition under section 827 is affirmed.
We concur:
RICHLI, J.
MILLER, J. --------------- Notes: All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code.