Opinion
E080425
07-13-2023
In re M.P., et al. Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Objector and Respondent. G.P., Petitioner and Appellant,
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner and Appellant. Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Jessica L. Morgan, Deputy County Counsel, for Objector and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County Nos. J293413 & J293414. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Reversed.
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner and Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Jessica L. Morgan, Deputy County Counsel, for Objector and Respondent.
OPINION
FIELDS J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant G.P. appeals from the denial of his request under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 for release of the dependency case files concerning his step grandchildren, M.P. and A.P. (the children). We reverse.
All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2022, appellant's counsel of record in his criminal case filed a Request for Disclosure of Juvenile Case File, Judicial Council Forms, form JV-570 (JV-570), essentially requesting all dependency case files concerning the children, including all social worker reports, Title XX or social worker logs, court minute orders or juvenile custody orders, narrative notes for emergency response referral information for any and all referrals dating back to 1999, and any and all other emergency response referrals made. Appellant's criminal case involved multiple counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts (Pen. Code, § 288, subds. (a) &(c)(1)) against the children. His counsel attached a declaration to appellant's request for disclosure stating it was her belief that the children were prior dependents of the San Bernardino County Juvenile Court during the period of September 5, 2017, to January 23, 2020, and that she was "aware of at least 12 referrals for abuse and neglect, 10 of which occurred during the timeframe alleged in [her] client's criminal case." She claimed that the children's father refused to cooperate in a forensic interview, which may have resulted in a section 387 being filed, and that there were several emergency response referrals that "could contain unfounded allegations." Counsel stated that the unfounded allegations may include information where the alleged victims made false allegations of abuse. She claimed the information requested was "highly relevant and critical to the defense of [her] client," since it "may contain relevant and material information that will bear on the credibility of the alleged victims."
The children's mother filed an objection to the release of the dependency records for the purpose of appellant's criminal case since she believed any release of the records would "further traumatize the children."
County counsel filed an objection to the release of all the dependency records on behalf of the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS). County counsel stated that numerous child welfare referrals were made to CFS from May 28, 2009, to June 4, 2022, but only the referrals made on January 27, 2020, June 11, 2020, October 14, 2020, and June 7, 2021, pertained to allegations that appellant sexually abused the children. County counsel stated that CFS investigated the sexual abuse allegations in the June 11, 2020 referral, which included the children receiving forensic interviews at the Children's Assessment Center (CAC), and CFS substantiated the sexual abuse allegations against appellant; however, it did not file a section 300 petition as a result of its investigation. County counsel argued that, generally, juvenile court records should be confidential and that a court must summarily deny the petition if the petitioner does not show good cause. County counsel contended that appellant's request was overbroad since it basically asked for all juvenile court records pertaining to the children's dependency cases, and the records contained extremely sensitive information, unrelated to any allegation that appellant sexually abused the children. She further argued that appellant failed to state how the requested records were relevant to the defense of his criminal case or to his guilt or innocence. County counsel agreed that appellant was entitled to referral records that directly pertained to allegations that he sexually abused the children. Thus, she did not object to a limited court order for the release of such records, with certain redactions. However, she requested that if the court was inclined to release all the records sought by appellant, the court conduct an in camera review first to determine which records should be released.
The court reviewed the filed objections and the dependency files and determined that access to the files was not in the children's best interests and that the dependency files had no relation to the criminal case.
DISCUSSION
The Court Should Have Ordered a Limited Release of the Juvenile Dependency Case Files
Appellant argues the court abused its discretion in denying his request for release of the dependency case files concerning the children. He states that he was "made aware of relevant material but did not have access to the information." He specifically states that referrals made on January 27, 2020, June 11, 2020, October 14, 2020, and June 7, 2021 "pertained to allegations that [he] sexually abused" the children. Appellant asserts that "[a]ny material in the juvenile case files that is material to [his] case that bears on the minors' credibility, or exposes their bias must be turned over." We agree that appellant was entitled to a limited release of some of the materials sought in the children's file.
A. Relevant Law
"The guidelines related to the dissemination of juvenile court records are found in sections 827 and 828 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.552 (hereafter Rule 5.552)." (R.S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1053.) "[S]ection 827, subdivisions (a)(1)(A) through (L), delineate the categories of persons having the right to inspect juvenile records without a court order." (Id. at pp. 1053-1054.) Section 827, subdivision (a)(1)(Q), provides a juvenile case file may be inspected by "[a]ny other person who may be designated by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon filing a petition." In other words, "with the exception of those persons permitted to inspect juvenile case files without court authorization under sections 827 and 828 . . . every person or agency seeking to inspect or obtain juvenile case files must petition the court for authorization using Petition for Access to Juvenile Court Records (form JV-570)." (Rule 5.552(b).) "[I]f the court determines that there may be information or documents in the records sought to which the petitioner may be entitled, the juvenile court judicial officer [sic] must conduct an in camera review of the juvenile case file and any objections and assume that all legal claims of privilege are asserted." (Rule 5.552(d)(3).)
"In determining whether to authorize inspection or release of juvenile case files, in whole or in part, the court must balance the interests of the child and other parties to the juvenile court proceedings, the interests of the petitioner, and the interests of the public." (Rule 5.552(d)(4).) The court may permit access to juvenile case files "only if petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the records requested are necessary and have substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner." (Rule 5.552(d)(6).) "The juvenile court may only release the portion of, or information relating to the contents of, juvenile case files protected by another state law or federal law or regulation if disclosure is not detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional wellbeing of a child who is directly or indirectly connected to the juvenile case that is the subject of the petition." (§ 827, subd. (a)(3)(A).)
"There is a strong public policy of confidentiality of juvenile records ...." (J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1337 (J.E.).) "Generally, a juvenile court has broad and exclusive authority to determine whether and to what extent to grant access to confidential juvenile records pursuant to section 827." (In re Elijah S. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1541.) We review a juvenile court's decision to release juvenile records under section 827 for an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)
B. Records Regarding Allegations that Appellant Sexually Abused the Children Were Necessary and Relevant to His Criminal Case
The court here followed the procedures and conducted an in camera review of the dependency case files and the objections filed. (Rule 5.552(d)(3).) In deciding whether to release the requested records, the court was required to balance the interests of the children and other parties to the juvenile court proceedings, appellant's interests, and the public's interests. (Rule 5.552(d)(4).) Appellant contends that "any material in the juvenile case files that is material to [his criminal] case that bears on the minors' credibility, or exposes their bias must be turned over." He argues the juvenile court's finding that "the dependency files ha[d] no relation to the criminal case" is flawed since the referrals made on January 27, 2020, June 11, 2020, October 14, 2020, and June 7, 2021 "relate to the very allegations of sexual abuse [he] faces in his criminal case."
Appellant relies upon Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308 (Davis), in support of his claim. The issue in that case was "whether the Confrontation Clause requires that a defendant in a criminal case be allowed to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness by cross-examination directed at possible bias deriving from the witness' probationary status as a juvenile delinquent when such an impeachment would conflict with a State's asserted interest in preserving the confidentiality of juvenile adjudications of delinquency." (Id. at p. 309.) Before testimony, the prosecution moved for a protective order to prevent any reference to the witness's juvenile record by the defense in the course of cross-examination. (Id. at p. 310.) The trial court granted the motion. (Id. at p. 311.) The defendant was convicted of burglary and larceny, and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. (Id. at p. 314.)
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether the defendant was denied his right under the Confrontation Clause to adequately crossexamine the juvenile witness. (Davis, supra, 415 U.S. at p. 315.) The Court noted that the defendant sought to introduce evidence of the witness's probation for the purpose of suggesting he was biased and, therefore, his testimony was either not to be believed or at least very carefully considered in that light. (Id. at p. 319.) The Court added that "[s]erious damage to the strength of the State's case would have been a real possibility had petitioner been allowed to pursue this line of inquiry." (Ibid.) The Supreme Court concluded that "the right of confrontation [was] paramount to the State's policy of protecting a juvenile offender." (Ibid.)
Although Davis is factually and procedurally distinguishable from the instant case, the reasoning of the Supreme Court applies where information in the juvenile court's files is necessary to aid a criminal defendant in impeachment of the witnesses as necessary to his defense. Appellant here was seeking the requested records for the purpose of showing the children were either biased or not to be believed and to ascertain what prior statements the children had made on the subject about which they would be testifying at trial. Appellant should be allowed to pursue this critical discovery since it could potentially seriously damage the State's case against him. (See Davis, supra, 415 U.S. at p. 319.) Without access to the information, the appellant cannot know whether the children are making inconsistent statements when they testify at trial. Even though there is a policy protecting the confidentiality of juvenile records, the court was required to balance the interests of the children and appellant's right to a fair trial. (Rule 5.552(d)(4).)
Furthermore, CFS conceded that the referrals made on January 27, 2020, June 11, 2020, October 14, 2020, and June 7, 2021, pertained to allegations that appellant sexually abused the children. Notably, CFS investigated the sexual abuse allegations in the June 11, 2020 referral, and CAC conducted forensic interviews of the children; however, CFS did not file a section 300 petition as a result of its investigation. The referrals and the attendant investigations appear to be relevant and necessary for possible impeachment purposes. Our state Supreme Court has repeatedly held that" 'a criminal defendant's right to discovery is based on the "fundamental proposition that [an accused] is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information." '" (People v. Gonzales (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932, 960.) In order to properly prepare for trial, a criminal defendant must have a complaining witness's prior statements regarding the subject of his or her testimony. Prior inconsistent statements are an important aspect of impeachment and may also be considered by the trier of fact for their truth. (See People v. Chhoun (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 44.) Witnesses often testify inconsistently from their prior statements. Therefore, appellant cannot be properly prepared for cross-examination without access to the children's prior statements on the very subject of their testimony.
Moreover, CFS agreed appellant was entitled to the referral records that directly pertained to allegations that he sexually abused the children. Thus, it did not object to a limited court order of such records, with certain redactions. We note there was no apparent evidence that a limited release of the records would be "detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being" of the children. (§ 827, subd. (a)(3)(A).)
We acknowledge the children's mother objected to the release of the records; however, her claim that it would "further traumatize the children" was unsupported by evidence. We note that the children would be expected to testify as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief in the criminal matter.
In light of CFS's agreement that appellant was entitled to the referral records that directly pertained to allegations that he sexually abused the children, and the relevance of the records to the potential defense in his criminal case, we conclude the court should have ordered a limited release of the records of the referrals made on January 27, 2020, June 11, 2020, October 14, 2020, and June 7, 2021.
DISPOSITION
The court's order is reversed. The records of the referrals made on January 27, 2020, June 11, 2020, October 14, 2020, and June 7, 2021, pertaining to allegations that appellant sexually abused the children, should be released to him.
We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J. MILLER J.