Opinion ID: 2576001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: When May Appellate Counsel Exercise the Power to Seek Dismissal of an Appeal Based on a Child's Best Interests?

Text: We determine next the circumstances in which appellate counsel may exercise the power to move for dismissal based on the child's best interests. This question requires resolution of a series of related questions: Who is charged with assessing and deciding whether the best interests of the child warrant a motion to dismiss? How does one determine that the child's best interests warrant such a motion? Who may authorize a motion to dismiss based on best interests? In answering these questions, we begin with the principle that dismissal of an appeal requires client consent. An attorney is authorized by virtue of his employment to bind the client in procedural matters arising during the course of the action but he may not impair the client's substantial rights or the cause of action itself. ( Linsk v. Linsk (1969) 70 Cal.2d 272, 276, 74 Cal.Rptr. 544, 449 P.2d 760; see also Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396, 404-405, 212 Cal.Rptr. 151, 696 P.2d 645.) The dismissal of an appeal curtails the client's right to any relief an appeal might afford. Though a procedural step, it relinquishes a client's substantial right and cannot be taken without client consent. (See Wuest v. Wuest (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 339, 345, 127 P.2d 934.) Thus, appellate counsel qua appellate counsel cannot unilaterally move to dismiss an appeal. [4] Who then is the client? That is, who has the power to evaluate the child's best interests and authorize a motion to dismiss? In civil matters, the answer is clear. With rare exceptions, a child who is a party to a suit must appear through a guardian ad litem or similar representative. (Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) Section 372 represents a recognition by the Legislature that whenever a minor is involved in litigation, his rights cannot be protected unless a guardian ad litem or a similar representative acts for him. The guardian ad litem is an officer of the court, and he has the right to control the lawsuit on the minor's behalf. Among his powers are the right to compromise or settle the action [citation], to control the procedural steps incident to the conduct of the litigation [citation], and, with the approval of the court, to make stipulations or concessions that are binding on the minor, provided they are not prejudicial to the latter's interests [citation]. ( De Los Santos v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 677, 683-684, 166 Cal.Rptr. 172, 613 P.2d 233.) A civil guardian ad litem's role is more than an attorney's but less than a party's, in that the guardian oversees any attorney representing minor's litigation-related interests and may make tactical and even fundamental decisions affecting the litigation, but always with the interest of the minor in mind. ( County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, italics omitted; accord, In re Christina B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1454, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 918.) Thus, in the civil context, the child's section 372 guardian ad litem would be responsible for authorizing a motion to dismiss an appeal after evaluating the child's interests. These principles do not automatically extend to the dependency context. Dependency proceedings in the juvenile court are special proceedings governed by their own rules and statutes. ([Welf. & Inst.Code,] § 300 et seq.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1440 et seq.) Unless otherwise specified, the requirements of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply. ( In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 711, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 759, fn. omitted; accord, In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 922.) However, in the absence of a dispositive provision in the Welfare and Institutions Code, we may look to these requirements for guidance. ( In re Daniel S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 903, 911, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 646.) The rules governing dependency guardians ad litem are slightly different than those applicable in civil proceedings. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.) authorizes federal funding of state child protective services programs subject to various conditions. Among those conditions, a state must ensure appointment of a specially trained guardian ad litem in every judicial proceeding involving an abused or neglected child. (42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii).) The CAPTA guardian ad litem is responsible for both evaluating the situation and needs of the child and mak[ing] recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child. (42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii)(I) & (II).) [5] Under the implementing regulations, states are required to ensure appointment of a guardian ad litem who will represent and protect the rights and best interests of the child. (45 C.F.R. § 1340.14(g), 55 Fed.Reg. 27639 (July 5, 1990).) Thus, the CAPTA guardian ad litem is a fiduciary whose role is to investigate the child's circumstances and advocate for her best interests. To ensure CAPTA funding, the Legislature passed Welfare and Institutions Code section 326.5, which directed the Judicial Council to adopt court rules governing appointment of CAPTA guardians ad litem. [6] The Judicial Council responded by amending California Rules of Court, rule 1438 and adding California Rules of Court, rule 1448. Rule 1448(c) requires appointment of a CAPTA guardian ad litem ... for every child who is subject to a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Rule 1448(d) mirrors the language of CAPTA, requiring that the CAPTA guardian ad litem evaluate the situation and needs of the child and make recommendations to the court concerning the best interest of the child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1448(d)(1), (2).) The child's CAPTA guardian ad litem will be either her attorney or, if no attorney has been appointed, a court-appointed special advocate. (§ 326.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 1438(b), (e), 1448(c).) To comply with CAPTA's competency requirements, the Rules of Court impose ongoing training and education requirements on both attorneys and court-appointed special advocates. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 1424(d), 1438(c); see § 102, subd. (d).) Thus, CAPTA and the state statutes and rules designed to implement its requirements ensure that each child in a dependency matter will have a trained, independent guardian ad litem prepared to understand the child's circumstances and make recommendations based on an evaluation of the child's best interests. We read the CAPTA provisions as extending to appeals. CAPTA's requirements apply to every judicial proceeding involving an abused or neglected child, without distinction between proceedings before a juvenile court or an appellate court. (See 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii).) Nor is there any discernable policy reason that would warrant reading into the statute an implied limitation. As this case demonstrates, to have a specially trained advocate prepared to speak to the child's best interests may be no less important in the appellate court than in the juvenile court. California Rules of Court, rule 1448, the state rule governing appointment of CAPTA guardians ad litem, does not explicitly address whether its provisions apply to appeals. Rule 1448(c) provides simply: A CAPTA guardian ad litem must be appointed for every child who is subject to a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. However, because a child involved in an appeal from a dependency proceeding order is still the subject of a juvenile dependency petition, CAPTA imposes on state courts a continuing obligation to ensure that each child has a CAPTA guardian ad litem on appeal. Given that CAPTA's requirements extend to appeals, and given the Legislature's manifest intent to ensure state eligibility for CAPTA funds through compliance with CAPTA's requirements (§ 326.5), we conclude that rule 1448 requires each child to have an appointed guardian ad litem on appeal. What are the implications of these rules for a motion to dismiss? Though an attorney must zealously advocate for her client, she cannot unilaterally appeal ( Guardianship of Gilman (1944) 23 Cal.2d 862, 864, 147 P.2d 530) or bring a motion to dismiss (ABA Model Code Prof. Responsibility, EC 7-7; ante, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 480, 115 P.3d at p. 1140). A motion to dismiss requires the authorization of the child or, if the child is incapable of giving authorization, the authorization of a guardian ad litem acting on the child's behalf and in the child's best interests. (See ABA Model Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.14, coms. [1], [3]; ABA Model Code Prof. Responsibility, EC 7-12.) In turn, the CAPTA guardian ad litem has a duty to represent and protect the rights and best interests of the child. (45 C.F.R. § 1340.14(g); see also 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1448(d).) This means that in the trial court, a CAPTA guardian ad litem who is also the child's attorney has a duty to bring an appeal when it is in the child's best interests to do so. On appeal, the duties imposed by CAPTA and California Rules of Court, rule 1448 continue. Thus, the CAPTA guardian ad litem has a continuing duty to advocate for the child's best interests, including seeking dismissal of an appeal when it is no longer in the child's best interests. When the CAPTA guardian ad litem and appellate counsel are two different people, the CAPTA guardian ad litem has a duty to authorize appellate counsel to bring a motion to dismiss when it is in the child's best interests and the child is not capable of providing authorization. Here, trial counsel had been appointed as the children's CAPTA guardian ad litem. When trial counsel filed a notice of appeal, the appellate court appointed a new appellate counsel, but not a new CAPTA guardian ad litem. Thus, trial counsel continued as the children's CAPTA guardian ad litem on appeal. (Cf. Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1498, fn. 2, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 95 [holding that under Code Civ. Proc., § 372, [a]n appointment in the trial court ... suffices to appoint a guardian ad litem for appellate purposes also].) Given the children's ages, a motion to dismiss could be brought only with the concurrence and authorization of trial counsel in her role as CAPTA guardian ad litem. [7] If trial counsel refused to authorize the motion, appellate counsel would have the option of either zealously arguing any issues on appeal or seeking to withdraw. Appellate counsel argues that section 317, subdivision (d) and California Rules of Court, rule 1448 limit trial counsel's CAPTA guardian ad litem service to the superior court; trial counsel could not serve as CAPTA guardian ad litem in the absence of a formal appointment by the Court of Appeal; and appellate counsel should be deemed the children's CAPTA guardian ad litem on appeal based on the language of California Rules of Court, former rules 39.1, 39.2 and 39.2A, despite the lack of any formal appointment. We are not persuaded. First, nothing in section 317, subdivision (d) or rule 1448 limits trial counsel's CAPTA guardian ad litem service to the superior court. Section 317, subdivision (d) governs only the scope of trial counsel's appointment as counsel and does not bear on her appointment as guardian ad litem. Rule 1448 distinguishes between the duties of a CAPTA guardian ad litem, which it defines, and the duties of a non-CAPTA guardian ad litem. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1448(b).) It applies to all juvenile dependency proceedings ( ibid. ), but does not distinguish between trial and appellate dependency proceedings. Nothing in rule 1448 suggests that the filing of a notice of appeal terminates the appointment of a child's CAPTA guardian ad litem or precludes her from continuing to serve during the course of appellate proceedings. Second, nothing in the language of rule 1448 requires appointment of a new CAPTA guardian ad litem. As indicated, California Rules of Court, rule 1448(c) provides that a CAPTA guardian ad litem must be appointed for every child who is subject to a juvenile dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. We interpret rule 1448 in light of the clear legislative purpose that the rules governing CAPTA guardians ad litem should be read to ensure compliance with CAPTA. As discussed, to comply with CAPTA, California must provide a child a guardian ad litem throughout the course of dependency proceedings. Appellate counsel's insertion of an implied requirement that each Court of Appeal appoint or reappoint the child's CAPTA guardian ad litem would place California in violation of CAPTA in every case (such as this one) where no appointment occurred. We decline to create such a gap. [8] Finally, California Rules of Court, former rules 39.1A, 39.2 and 39.2A, [9] have no bearing on the status of appellate counsel as CAPTA guardian ad litem. They provided for the filing of a minor's brief in parental appeals of dependency rulings  nothing more, nothing less. They offer no reason to conclude that new appellate counsel takes over trial counsel's role as CAPTA guardian ad litem in the absence of an order so stating. Moreover, as pointed out by numerous amici curiae, any such presumption would be problematic. In order to obtain appointment as guardian ad litem, a child's trial counsel must have demonstrated satisfaction of the state-imposed competency requirements needed to comply with CAPTA. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1438(c).) A child's appellate counsel may or may not be able to demonstrate satisfaction of these requirements.