Opinion
A166529
08-09-2023
In re P.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. P.A., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JV-031012-06)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rodriguez, J.
In 2019, P.A. was declared a dependent of the juvenile court. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 300.) Three years later, the district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition concerning the minor. (Id., § 602.) At an August 5, 2022 pretrial conference, P.A. pled no contest to a misdemeanor count, and the court sustained that allegation.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not provide a detailed factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, "the facts of the case and its procedural history." (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court's decision "does not merit extensive factual or legal statement"].)
On August 12, 2022, the juvenile court held a detention hearing; it ordered P.A. to be detained and set a disposition hearing for August 26. It directed the probation department to prepare a section 241.1 report and to notify county counsel and the child welfare worker of the next court date. P.A.'s delinquency counsel, John Bix - who had been appointed that day - informed the court that Kim Rhody was P.A.'s dependency counsel and had been "for a lengthy period of time."
The day before the disposition hearing - which ultimately took place on August 25 - a section 241.1 report was filed; in it, the probation department and the child welfare worker agreed P.A. should be declared a ward. Rhody did not attend the disposition hearing - the record is silent regarding whether she received notice of the hearing or a copy of the report. Bix submitted on the recommendation that P.A.'s dependency be terminated, and he represented P.A. was "in favor of that result." The juvenile court declared P.A. a ward of the court and terminated her status as a section 300 dependent.
Generally, a minor cannot both be a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court. (In re Ray M. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1038, 1048.) When a minor qualifies as both, the probation department and child welfare services "shall, pursuant to a jointly developed written protocol . . ., initially determine which status will serve the best interests of the minor and the protection of society." (§ 241.1, subd. (a).) The recommendation shall be presented to the court, and "the court shall determine which status is appropriate for the minor." (Ibid.) Notice of the disposition hearing and a copy of the section 241.1 report must be provided to all attorneys of record at least five calendar days prior to the hearing (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.512(f)), and the parties' attorneys "must have an opportunity to be heard at the hearing" (id., rule 5.512(g)). That does not appear to have happened here. As the Attorney General observes, failure to provide the required notice "effectively denies a minor the opportunity to be heard on the issue of the minor's status as either a dependent under section 300 or a ward under section 601 or 602." (In re Ray M., at pp. 1051-1052.) The Attorney General further concedes the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183.) We accept the concession.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's determination under section 241.1 declaring P.A. a ward of the court and terminating dependency jurisdiction is reversed. We remand with directions that the court conduct a new assessment under section 241.1 with proper notice and a copy of the report to P.A.'s dependency attorney.
WE CONCUR: Tucher, P. J. Petrou, J.