Court Opinion

ID: 9840471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 18:03:42.08252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:34.943712
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/18/23 In re S.W. CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 In re S.W., a Person Coming                                  2d Juv. No. B327560
 Under the Juvenile Court                                   (Super. Ct. No. J073162)
 Law.                                                          (Ventura County)

 VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN
 SERVICES AGENCY,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 A.W.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

       A.W. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating his parental rights to his daughter, S.W., and
selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1

         1Further unspecified statutory references are to the

Welfare and Institutions Code.
§ 366.26.) He contends, and the Ventura County Human Services
Agency (the Agency) concedes, the order terminating his parental
rights must be reversed because the Agency did not exercise due
diligence in locating him. We agree and reverse the parental
rights termination order.
             FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
        In October 2022, the Agency filed a juvenile petition
alleging that six-year-old S.W. suffered serious physical and
emotional abuse from A.H. (Mother) and her stepmother. (§ 300,
subds. (a), (b)(1), (c), (g) & (i).) The petition alleged Father’s
whereabouts were unknown.
        Mother identified Father as S.W.’s father. She had not
been in a relationship with him for four years. She said they
shared joint custody of S.W. because she never filed for sole
custody. S.W. did not visit Father because Mother had concerns
about his ability to parent. During an interview, S.W. said that
she had not “talked to [Father] in ‘a long time’ and stated that he
lives ‘far away.’ ”
        The Agency asked Mother about Father’s whereabouts and
information, but Mother denied having information. The Agency
also attempted to notice Father of the detention hearing, but the
phone number it had for Father was not in service. The Agency
attempted to locate Father on the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Public Inmate Locator System,
but the website was not allowing access.
        At the detention hearing, Father was not present. The
juvenile court found Father to be the alleged father and ordered a
paternity inquiry to be sent to the Department of Child Support
Services. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found a
prima facie case existed to detain minor in protective custody.

                                2
       The Agency filed a jurisdiction/disposition report. The
report stated that Father was listed as the father on S.W.’s birth
certificate. The Agency contacted one of Father’s aunts, E.S. She
confirmed that Father was S.W.’s father. The aunt said that at
Father’s request, S.W. lived with her for three and a half months
in 2019. The aunt said she no longer had a relationship with
Father and did not know his whereabouts. The aunt said that
the Modesto address the Agency had on file was from “years ago.”
The aunt reported that she tried to message Father on Facebook
Messenger, but she had not heard back from him. The Agency
also contacted one of Father’s other aunts, who said she had no
contact with Father and that the last time he posted on Facebook
was in October 2021.
       The report included a due diligence declaration regarding
the Agency’s attempt at locating Father. Using Father’s full
name, date of birth, social security number, and last known
address, the Agency conducted a search of state and federal
prison, voter registration, probation/parole, Calwin, CWS/CMS,
child support division, and local jail databases. The CWS/CMS
yielded a last known address in Modesto as of January 2020 and
a phone number. The report noted that the Modesto address was
the one E.S. claimed that Father had not lived at for years. The
phone number also did not belong to Father.
       The search of the child support division records resulted in
a Bakersfield address. A parent contact letter was sent only to
this Bakersfield address. No contact letter was sent to the
Modesto address. The other searches did not result in any
information.
       At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, Father was not
present. Mother submitted on the jurisdiction/disposition report,

                                 3
and the juvenile court sustained the petition. The court bypassed
reunification services for Mother and set a section 366.26 hearing
and a notice review hearing.
        In December 2022, without again contacting the
Department of Child Support Services to locate Father, the
Agency requested an order for publication and included the same
declaration of due diligence it previously filed regarding its
attempts to locate Father. The juvenile court issued the order for
publication to provide notice of the section 366.26 hearing to
Father. The Agency published notice to Father in a Bakersfield
newspaper on four dates that month.
        At the notice review hearing, the court found notice had
been given to Father for the section 366.26 hearing.
        At the section 366.26 hearing, Father was not present. The
court terminated Mother and Father’s parental rights and
selected adoption as the permanent plan.
                            DISCUSSION
        Father contends and the Agency concedes the order
terminating his parental rights must be reversed because the
Agency did not exercise due diligence in locating him and giving
him notice of the dependency proceedings. We agree.
        “In juvenile dependency proceedings, due process requires
parents to be given notice that is reasonably calculated to advise
them that an action is pending and afford them an opportunity to
defend. [Citation.] Reasonable diligence includes not only
‘ “ ‘standard avenues available to help locate a missing parent,’
but ‘ “specific ones most likely under the unique facts known to
the [Agency] to yield [a parent’s] address.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘Social
services agencies, invested with a public trust and acting as
temporary custodians of dependent minors, are bound by law to

                                  4
make every reasonable effort in attempting to inform parents of
all hearings. They must leave no stone unturned.’ [Citation.]”
(In re Jayden G. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 301, 309.)
       Moreover, “dependent families are entitled to an assurance
that the Department will . . . take steps to ensure that Child
Support Services is contacted whenever a parent is missing, and
contacted again at reasonable intervals until the parent is located
or the case is closed.” (In re Megan P. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th
480, 489-490 (Megan P.), italics added.)
       Failure to provide due process notice to a parent is a “ ‘fatal
defect’ ” undermining the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the
dependency judgment. (Ansley v. Superior Court (1986) 185
Cal.App.3d 477, 483.) Thus, reversal is required where the
agency fails to exercise due diligence in searching for a parent.
(In re R.A. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 826, 836.)
       Here, the Agency concedes that “it likely did not fulfill its
duty of due diligence” to locate Father. As an example, the
Agency admits that though it contacted the Department of Child
Support Services early in the dependency proceedings, it did not
contact the department before requesting publication to notice
the section 366.26 hearing and again thereafter.
       We accept the Agency’s concession that it should have
contacted the Department of Child Support Services at
reasonable intervals. Father “is entitled to that much—and
future dependent families are entitled to an assurance that the
Department will examine its procedures and take steps to ensure
that Child Support Services is contacted whenever a parent is
missing, and contacted again at reasonable intervals until the
parent is located or the case is closed, so that this issue will not
arise in the future.” (See Megan P., supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at pp.

                                  5
489-490.) Thus, we reverse the order terminating parental
rights.
       On remand, the juvenile court must conduct new
dependency proceedings, beginning with a paternity inquiry, to
determine whether Father is a presumed father. The court shall
hold a new jurisdiction and disposition hearing after providing
proper notice to Father. (Megan P., supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p.
490; In re Arlyne A. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 591, 599-600.)
Although our decision has the effect of restoring Mother’s
parental rights, “nothing in our decision requires the juvenile
court to revisit its prior decisions concerning [M]other.” (In re
Mia M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 792, 814.) “We acknowledge that
our decision today will further delay permanency for” S.W.
(Ibid.)
                            DISPOSITION
       The order terminating parental rights, entered March 15,
2023, is reversed and the matter is remanded to the juvenile
court with directions (1) to vacate the jurisdiction and disposition
order and the order terminating parental rights, and (2) after
providing Father with proper notice, to conduct new dependency
proceedings, beginning with a paternity inquiry.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.                      YEGAN, J.

                                 6
                      Tari L. Cody, Judge

               Superior Court County of Ventura

                ______________________________

      Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Tiffany N. North, County Counsel, Joseph J. Randazzo,
Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.