Court Opinion

ID: 9798067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:36:28.696737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:38.398860
License: Public Domain

BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority insofar as it affirms the Court of Appeal’s decision to annul the contempt judgment entered against Kayla W. (Mother) in the juvenile court. However, I do so for reasons invoked not by the majority itself, but by the Court of Appeal, namely, that use of the contempt power under the particular facts of this case constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Mother’s noncompliance with the reunification plan led to her ejection from the substance abuse recovery program in which she was ordered to participate, the termination of reunification services which the juvenile court was required to provide and which *1239Mother never duly waived, and the scheduling of permanency planning proceedings necessary to terminate her parental rights. Once this chain of events occurred, the juvenile court had no discretion to use the sanction of contempt—here, a hefty term of 300 days in jail—purely as after-the-fact punishment for failing to follow orders whose sole purpose was the retention of parental rights. As evidenced by the Court of Appeal’s opinion, no more needs to be said to resolve this case.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s broader rationale and conclusion that the contempt power is never available to enforce lawful orders routinely directed at parents in the course of the reunification process before those services have been terminated. Until today’s ruling, it appears juvenile courts had authority to at least sparingly order modest fines and/or brief stints in custody—not to punish past failures to comply with the conditions of reunification—but to encourage wavering parents who have not spumed the statutory process altogether, and who have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, to abide by their continuing duty to undergo substance abuse treatment ordered to help the family reunite. Today’s contrary holding, which gives juvenile courts no ability to enforce their orders other than by permanently terminating the rights of such parents, seems at odds with the statutory scheme, which seeks to restore functional families whenever possible. The majority’s decision will likely come as a surprise to juvenile courts statewide, whose inherent and statutory powers of enforcement are now diminished, and to the Legislature, whose statute authorizing contempt in dependency cases has now been judicially curtailed. My reasoning is as follows.
The juvenile court is a department of the superior court specially authorized to administer the Amold-Kennick Juvenile Court Law, including the dependency scheme. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 200, 245; In re Ashley M. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1, 6-7 [7 Cal.Rptr.3d 237].)1 As relevant here, the juvenile court is required, upon removing a dependent child from parental custody (see §§ 300, 355, 361, subd. (c)), to order that social welfare services be provided to parent and child, and that parents who wish to retain their parental rights participate in those services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a); see Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 247-248 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 698, 851 P.2d 1307].) Various provisions give the juvenile court power to compel parental participation in this regard unless the parents have made clear, by the means set forth in the statute, that they wish to forgo reunification.
As noted by the majority, such compulsion of a participating parent comes in the form of “orders” designed to eliminate the substance abuse or other *1240problems that caused the child to be adjudged a dependent of the court and removed from parental custody in the first place. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1224, 1229.) Thus, section 362, subdivision (c) contemplates the issuance of “any and all reasonable orders to the parents” of the dependent child as the court “deems necessary and proper” for treatment, counseling, and educational purposes. Another provision, section 245.5, allows the juvenile court to “direct all such orders to the parent [or] parents” that best provide for the care, custody, and support of the children under its jurisdiction.
Of course, reunification services need not be provided to a parent who does not wish to maintain the family unit, and who makes an informed decision to reject them. As noted by the majority, section 361.5, subdivision (b)(14) allows the parent to “waiveQ” such services, where the waiver is expressed in writing, executed while the parent is represented by counsel, and accompanied by an advisement of the possible consequences, including the termination of parental rights and placement of the dependent child for adoption. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1229, 1233-1234 & fn. 7; see also § 360, subd. (a) [parental decision to forgo reunification may lead to establishment of legal guardianship].) Nothing in the statutory scheme or the majority opinion suggests there are any limits on the time for waiving reunification services and relinquishing the parental role. (See § 361, subd. (b) [parent may “voluntarily relinquish” dependent child to state welfare or county adoption agency “at any time”].) The Legislature has thus ensured that the most deficient and reluctant parents are not forced to undergo or continue reunification against their will.
On the other hand, contrary to what the majority implies, nothing in the statutory scheme purports to limit the manner in which the juvenile court may compel parents who have chosen to accept reunification services to comply with orders directing their participation in the plan, including substance abuse recovery programs. Nor does the majority cite any statute that treats the juvenile court differently from other departments of the superior court with respect to the enforcement of such orders. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.
We have said that the contempt power is inherent in, and necessarily incidental to, the powers conferred on all courts to perform their duties and to maintain order and dignity in the process. (In re Buckley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 247-248 [110 Cal.Rptr. 121, 514 P.2d 1201].) Contempt may be used judiciously (see Furey v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1297, 1314 [240 Cal.Rptr. 849, 240 Cal.Rptr. 859, 743 P.2d 919]) to convince someone who has disobeyed a court order, but who is still in a position to comply, that he or she should now “do what he [or she] was ordered to do.” (In re Jackson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 773, 782 [216 Cal.Rptr. *1241539].) While such power exists “independent” of statute (In re Michael G. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 283, 289 [243 Cal.Rptr. 224, 747 P.2d 1152]), the Legislature has seen fit to codify and define it in certain respects. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1209 et seq.)
Critical here is section 213. It states that “[a]ny willful disobedience or interference with any lawful order of the juvenile court or of a judge or referee thereof constitutes a contempt of court.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a) [specifying fines not exceeding $1,000 or incarceration not exceeding five days, or both].) Section 213 works in conjunction with the traditional power of file juvenile court to ensure that “any” lawful order is discharged. (See In re Michael G., supra, 44 Cal.3d 283, 288-289 & fn. 3.)
The majority insists, however, that the Legislature has implicitly deprived the juvenile court of both its inherent and statutory authority to hold parents of dependent children in contempt for violating lawful orders to undergo substance abuse treatment and to participate in other programs that are part of an ongoing reunification plan. The proffered reasoning is unclear and unpersuasive.
On the one hand, the majority acknowledges that juvenile courts may employ contempt where necessary and proper to do so in a wide array of dependency settings. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1232-1233 & fn. 6.) Such situations arise where child welfare agencies are unwilling to provide reunification services ordered by the court (In re Ashley M., supra, 114 Cal.App.4th 1, 9-10 & fn. 5), or where counsel, through words or acts, impugns the integrity of the court. (See §§ 317-317.6 [appointment of counsel for parent and dependent child]; In re White (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1477-1478 [18 Cal.Rptr.3d 444] [examples of contemptuous behavior by counsel].) The majority opinion itself cites additional instances in which the parent’s failure to follow dependency orders may warrant a contempt finding. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1232-1233, citing In re Nemis M. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1351-1352 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 324] [failure to appear at jurisdictional hearing]; In re Tiffany G. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 443, 448, 451-452 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 8] [violation of confidentiality order].) These instances include conduct that jeopardizes the physical safety of the dependent child with whom the parent is attempting to reunify. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1238.)
On the other hand, the majority insists the juvenile court lacks power to hold a parent in contempt for failing to undergo substance abuse treatment or to participate in other reunification services ordered to ensure that the process will succeed. This, the majority asserts, is because of the “unique” (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 1224) and “voluntary” nature of parental participation in reunification plans. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1224, 1233.) The majority also *1242suggests that contempt is inherently punitive, and thus inconsistent with such a permissive scheme. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1230-1233.)
I disagree with this reasoning. Once the parent voluntarily decides to accept reunification services, and thereby to submit to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, he or she has, as a necessary consequence, agreed to submit to all lawful orders of the court. As noted, the statutory scheme sets forth various circumstances under which parents must comply with such orders, and does not explicitly exempt them from the contempt power expressed in section 213. If the parent decides either at the start or in the midst of the process that he or she does not wish to participate, the statutory procedures for opting out of reunification may be invoked at that time. What the parent is not free to do is remain in the system while making a mockery of the court’s authority and disobeying its orders without any threat of contempt.
Finally, it seems shortsighted as a policy matter to withhold contempt as a means of enforcing parental compliance with reunification orders. The majority leaves no doubt that, in its view, the only sanction (i.e., “punishment”) for noncompliance with reunification orders is the “loss of those services and, ultimately, loss of parental rights.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1235.) Certainly, such a drastic outcome is authorized where, notwithstanding the provision of reunification services as required by statute, the evidence shows, and the court finds, that the parent has failed to participate regularly and/or make substantive progress, and that return of the dependent child to the parent would be detrimental to the child. (See, e.g., §§ 366.21, subds. (e) [six-month review hearing], (f) [12-month permanency hearing], 366.22, subd. (a) [18-month permanency review hearing], 366.26 [hearing terminating parental rights]; see also Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th 242, 249-250.)
However, for reasons I have described, I seriously doubt that the Legislature intended the termination of reunification services and parental rights, and permanent removal of the child from parental custody, to be the first, last, and sole resort of the juvenile courts with respect to parents who willfully fail to participate in court-ordered programs. As the majority concedes, safeguarding the child and preserving family relationships are the main goals of the dependency scheme. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1228.) As in other situations in which parents violate dependency orders, the Legislature has embraced the juvenile court’s authority to threaten contempt to emphasize the seriousness of the reunification process and give parents every opportunity and incentive to comply.
*1243At bottom, it seems inconsistent to conclude that the juvenile court has the power to compel a parent to participate in reunification, but that the court’s only recourse in the event of parental nonparticipation is to order an end to reunification services and terminate the parent-child relationship. I doubt that is what the Legislature intended.

 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.