Court Opinion

ID: 9393303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 20:03:16.796823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.958032
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/9/23 In re A.S. CA4/2
                     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
                               publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

 In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the
 Juvenile Court Law.

 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            E079931

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super.Ct.No. J280886)

 v.                                                                       OPINION

 J.P.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Lelah S. Fisher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant. J.P.

         Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

                                                              1
          Tom Bunton and Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin,

Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

          While a prior appeal in A.S.’s (Minor) case was pending (case No. E076176;

hereafter, the prior appeal)1 , the juvenile court granted the adoption petition of Minor’s

foster parents and dismissed the dependency case pertaining to Minor. Subsequently,

this court filed its opinion in the prior appeal; at the time, this court was unaware of the

dismissal in the juvenile court. Upon the juvenile court receiving our remittitur from

the prior appeal with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court

concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hold the hearing. Defendant and appellant, J.P., who

is Minor’s paternal aunt (Aunt) appeals asserting we should recall the remittitur in the

prior appeal. We affirm.

                                   PROCEDURAL HISTORY

          Minor was two months old when he was removed from his mother and father.

Minor was placed in foster care. The Department filed a supplemental petition on

behalf of Minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387.)2 Aunt and Minor’s paternal grandmother

(collectively, Relatives) made a written request for relative placement preference of

Minor (§ 361.3) which, including exhibits, was approximately 55 pages. The exhibits

included, among other things, declarations from Relatives as well as many photographs.

          1   By separate order, this court took judicial notice of the record in the prior
appeal.

          2
         All subsequent statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, unless otherwise indicated.

                                                  2
        At the start of the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile

court explained that Relatives’ request for placement preference would be addressed as

part of the disposition hearing. During the disposition hearing, the juvenile court said,

“My intent is not to have witnesses.”3 The juvenile court remarked that it had read

Relatives’ written request. The following exchange occurred:

        “[Relatives’ Attorney]: The Court will allow some testimony?

        “The Court: No. . . . [W]ith all of these pictures and documents and

declarations—you can move that into evidence. That’s part of what I would consider

evidence. Right now I don’t need testimony. If I feel like I need it to help me make the

decision, I’ll allow it. But right now I don’t see that. I think you have given me a lot to

look at. Thank you. [¶] Everybody got a copy of her [request]; right?

        “[Relatives’ Attorney]: So second call, your Honor?

        “The Court: Yes. Just to make sure everybody has each other’s stuff. Thank

you.”

        After a recess that lasted “like an hour and a half or two,” the juvenile court said,

“[S]o she did request to call witnesses, but, frankly, based on everything I have, there is

no need for extra evidence. I would receive in the declarations of family, along with the

pictures and things like that they put in . . . . Those would be the things I would be

        3   We note that this hearing took place during the pandemic, on October 6, 2020.

                                              3
considering, and I don’t think it’s necessary to call witnesses, and that is my purview to

determine if I have enough information.”4

       The juvenile court confirmed Relatives’ exhibits were admitted into evidence and

asked Relatives’ Attorney if she had “any other documentary evidence you want [the

court] to consider?” She responded, “That’s it for now.” In the argument portion of the

disposition hearing, Relatives’ Attorney argued the issue of relative preference,

asserting, “It is in the best interest if [Minor] is placed with the [Relatives] and assessed

accordingly.” Father’s attorney concurred with Relatives’ attorney.

       In announcing its ruling, the juvenile court said, “I did read the declarations and

information and pictures. I appreciate the love [Relatives have for Minor].” After

providing its analysis, the juvenile court concluded, “[F]or the reasons stated in [the

section] 361.3 analysis . . . , I think it would be harmful to remove [Minor] to place him

with [R]elatives.”

       In the prior appeal, Relatives asserted that the juvenile court denied them an

evidentiary hearing on their request for relative placement. While the prior appeal was

pending, on March 23, 2021, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s and Father’s

parental rights. On December 27, 2021, while the prior appeal was still pending, the

       4   Section 350, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in relevant part, “The judge of the
juvenile court shall control all proceedings during the hearings with a view to the
expeditious and effective ascertainment of the jurisdictional facts and the ascertainment
of all information relative to the present condition and future welfare of the person upon
whose behalf the petition is brought.”

                                              4
juvenile court granted Minor’s foster parents’ petition for adoption and dismissed the

dependency case.

       On January 19, 2022, this court filed its opinion in the prior appeal, reversing

with directions for the juvenile court “to hold a full evidentiary hearing to consider the

relative placement issues under [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 361.3,

subdivision (a).” The remittitur issued on March 23, 2022.

       Approximately six months later, on September 16, 2022, in the juvenile court,

the Department moved to dismiss the case. The Department asserted that Minor was no

longer a ward of the juvenile court, and therefore could not be the subject of a

placement hearing, as directed by this court. In opposing the motion to dismiss, Aunt

asserted the juvenile court had lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with the

adoption while the prior appeal was pending.

       On October 5, 2022, in a minute order, the juvenile court explained, “Matter on

calendar due to the adoption for this case filed and finalized while there was a pending

appeal. [¶] The [juvenile] court was not aware there was a pending appeal and would

not have proceeded with the adoption. [¶] Court notes there was no stay ordered from

[the] Court of Appeal; however had the [juvenile] court known there was a pending

appeal the adoption would not have been set. [¶] The [juvenile] court now does not

have juris[diction] to have this hearing and there are no pending appeals. [¶] The

matter is now dismissed and all counsel relieved.”

                                             5
                                      DISCUSSION

       Aunt appeals from the juvenile court’s October 5, 2022 determination that it

lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the case. Aunt’s appeal is essentially a motion to

recall the remittitur in the prior appeal, which Aunt asserts should be recalled “to

instruct the juvenile court to vacate its adoption order and reinstate [Minor’s]

dependency case so that [the juvenile court] may hold the evidentiary hearing regarding

relative placement.”

       A juvenile court must give relatives preferential consideration when determining

a dependent’s placement. (§ 361.3, subd. (a).) That means the issue of relative

placement arises at the disposition hearing and “whenever a new placement of the child

must be made.” (§ 361.3, subd. (d); In re Lauren R. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 841, 854,

857-858.) Accordingly, the juvenile court considered the issue of relative placement

preference during the disposition hearing, as required, but it excluded live testimony.

(§ 361.3, subd. (d).)

       Because this is an appeal—not a motion—Aunt needs to establish prejudice

before we can reverse. (Code Civ. Proc., § 475.) Therefore, Aunt needs to direct us to a

point in the record that establishes a reasonable probability of a different outcome if live

testimony had been taken at the disposition hearing, e.g., direct us to an offer of proof at

the disposition hearing. In order to reverse the determination that the juvenile court

lacked jurisdiction, then recall the remittitur, and then direct an evidentiary hearing to

be held, we would need some indication of a reasonable probability of a different

outcome if those things occurred. Aunt makes no such showing. Indeed, Aunt has not

                                             6
addressed the issue of prejudice at all. Therefore, we cannot reverse and make those

orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)

                                     DISPOSITION

      The determination that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                      MILLER
                                                                              Acting P. J.

We concur:

SLOUGH
                                J.

RAPHAEL
                                J.

                                           7