Court Opinion

ID: 9905996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 18:02:38.217849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:03.262375
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/3/23 Certified for Publication 11/30/23 (order attached)

         IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                              FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO

 In re K.B. et al., Persons Coming
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND
 SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
         Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.                                                       A167385
 D.B.,
                                                          (Solano County Super. Ct.
         Defendant and Appellant.                         Nos. J45625 & J45626)

         D.B. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and
disposition orders in the dependency proceedings regarding her two sons,
K.B. and K. (Minors). Specifically, Mother challenges the court’s
dispositional findings that the Solano County Department of Health and
Social Services (Department) exercised due diligence to identify, locate, and
contact Minors’ relatives. We agree that there was insufficient evidence to
support the due diligence findings and so we reverse them. We affirm the
orders in all other respects.

                                                   1
                                BACKGROUND
   A. Petition and Detention
        Mother gave birth to K.B. in August 2022. Both she and K.B. tested
positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and marijuana at the
hospital, triggering a referral to the Department. The hospital admitted K.B.
to the neonatal intensive care unit and the Department placed him in
temporary protective custody. Mother left the hospital. Law enforcement
subsequently found Mother and Minors’ father (Father) at the family home
and arrested both of them on out of county warrants. Law enforcement took
one-year-old K. into protective custody with the Department.
        The Department filed a dependency petition alleging Minors were
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because they were at substantial
risk of serious harm due to their parents’ ongoing substance abuse. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (j).)1 The August 16, 2022 detention report
indicated that Minors’ parents had moved to Arkansas the year before “with
support from the paternal family members” so Mother “could get away from
Vallejo and her addiction.” In the intervening months, Minors’ parents
returned to California “to obtain housing.”
        The report indicated that the social worker had contacted the maternal
grandmother as part of the Department’s inquiry into Minors’ Native
American ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C.
§ 1901 et seq.). Maternal grandmother stated she was not aware of any such
ancestry. The report does not indicate that the social worker discussed
anything else with the maternal grandmother. A later section of the report

        1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.

                                        2
regarding relative placement information contained a single sentence:
“There are relatives to consider for placement at time of detention.”
      At the August 17, 2022 uncontested detention hearing, the juvenile
court found the Department had made a prima facie case that Minors came
within section 300 and that returning them to parental custody was contrary
to their welfare. The court found the parents presented a substantial danger
to Minors’ physical or emotional health, and there were no reasonable means
to protect their health absent removal. The court ordered Minors detained.
It ordered “suitable licensed” placement for Minors because “a relative who is
able, approved, and willing to care for the children is not available.” The
court noted: “This is a temporary finding. It does not preclude later
placement with a relative, pursuant to section 361.3.”
   B. Jurisdiction and Disposition
      In its September 22, 2022 jurisdiction and disposition report, the
Department recommended that the juvenile court sustain the allegations
against both parents, order the continued detention of Minors, and order
reunification services for the parents. The Department placed Minors in a
non-relative foster home.
      According to the report, the social worker discussed relative placement
with each parent on September 1, 2022. It stated that Mother “was unable to
identify any relatives to be considered for placement,” but “reported that the
maternal grandmother, and other relatives reside in Mississippi.” Father
stated that “he has relatives in the state of Arkansas that may be placements
[sic] options in the future” but “at this time, he was unable to identify any
relatives in California for placement.”
      The report indicated that the social worker had contacted the paternal
grandmother on September 12, 2022, as part of the Department’s ICWA

                                          3
inquiry. The paternal grandmother reported that she lives in Arkansas. She
has cared for Minors’ eight-year-old half sister since she was a baby. The
paternal grandmother confirmed that Minors’ parents live together in
Vallejo, and reportedly stated that Father is a “ ‘weed head’ ” who is “ ‘loyal to
his women,’ ” and Mother “ ‘comes and goes’ ” while Father cares for the
Minors. The paternal grandmother did not know if Father used other
substances and did not believe that he knew of Mother’s substance abuse.
The paternal grandmother indicated that Father had two other children
whose mother also “abuses substances.” The report does not indicate that the
social worker discussed anything else with the paternal grandmother.
      The report also detailed a meeting with the parents on September 20,
2022 to identify permanency options and a concurrent plan for Minors should
reunification not occur. It states: “The parents identified several concurrent
options with the maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother, maternal
aunt, and a family friend. It is noted the grandmothers reside out of state in
Arkansas and Mississippi. The Department will continue to work with the
family in concurrent planning.”
      At the contested January 20, 2023 jurisdiction and disposition hearing,
the parties stipulated to the reading of written statements by the parents
into evidence and otherwise submitted on the documents. Mother’s
statement indicated that she sought the opportunity to show she was a “fit
parent,” and wanted to get involved in drug court to find “guidance and
support” to reunify with Minors. Father stated his belief that “these issues
can be addressed without the removal and continued deprivation of family
quality and ability to work on our family issues with our children home with
us.” Mother’s counsel objected to jurisdiction and requested family
maintenance, while counsel for Father stated that he was “willing to accept”

                                        4
family reunification. The Department’s investigation regarding relatives was
not raised by any of the parties or the court.
      The juvenile court sustained the Department’s allegations under
section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The court declared Minors dependents.
It ordered that the Department offer reunification services to both parents.
The court stated that it would “set this matter for interim review in three
months. And we can revisit placement on that day.” During the hearing,
neither parent voiced concern or raised an objection regarding the
Department’s investigation of Minors’ relatives.
      In its written dispositional findings and orders dated January 23, 2023,
the court checked the box: “The county agency has exercised due diligence to
identify, locate, and contact the child’s relatives.” The written orders also
authorized placement of Minors in a foster home, relative home, or
nonrelative extended family member home.
      This appeal followed.
                                DISCUSSION
      Mother’s appeal presents a narrow challenge to the juvenile court’s
dispositional findings that the Department exercised due diligence to
identify, locate, and contact Minors’ relatives. The Department offers three
alternative arguments in response: (1) Mother has forfeited her challenge;
(2) the due diligence findings are supported by substantial evidence; and
(3) any error in making the findings was harmless. We address, and reject,
each argument in turn.
                                I.   No Forfeiture
      The Department contends that Mother forfeited her challenge to the
juvenile court’s due diligence findings. “It is true that, as the Department
contends, a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a

                                        5
ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court.”
(In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293.) But application of this general rule
is not reasonable under the circumstances reflected in the record here.2
      Mother had no notice of the due diligence findings, either before or at
the time they were entered. The juvenile court made no due diligence finding
at detention. Then, in its jurisdictional/dispositional report, the Department
asked the court to “accept the proposed Findings and Orders that are
submitted with this report.” But, as the Department concedes, there is
nothing attached to that report (or otherwise in the record before us) that
includes any proposed due diligence findings. Neither the parties nor the
court discussed the due diligence findings at the jurisdictional and
dispositional hearing. Instead, it appears that these findings were reflected
for the first time in the written orders after the hearing.
      We agree that the parents’ collective failure to mention, let alone object
to, the due diligence findings is troubling. It is also telling that, despite the
passage of time, even in her appellate briefing, Mother does not suggest any
potential placement for Minors with any particular relative. That said, as
discussed below, section 309 is not conditioned on parents’ cooperation and its
impact is not limited to placement. It requires that the Department conduct
an investigation into relatives with due diligence, and that the court find the
Department has fulfilled its mandate. Imposing forfeiture to bar Mother’s
appeal would not be in Minors’ best interests.

      2 Given this conclusion, we need not and do not address Mother’s

alternative arguments that (1) forfeiture is not applicable to challenges
regarding the sufficiency of evidence at disposition, or (2) even if forfeited, we
should exercise our discretion to decide the issue.
                                         6
        II.    No Substantial Evidence for Due Diligence Findings
   A. Standard of Review
      The question of whether the Department exercised due diligence to
identify, locate, and contact Minors’ relatives is “primarily a factual matter”
that considers the Department’s efforts. (In re S.K. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 29,
36 (S.K.).) We therefore review the trial court’s due diligence findings for
substantial evidence. (Ibid.) “[W]e examine the whole record and ask
whether any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports
the court’s finding[s], indulging all reasonable inferences in support of it.”
(Id. at p. 37.) Substantial evidence “means evidence that is ‘reasonable,
credible and of solid value; it must actually be substantial proof of the
essentials that the law requires in a particular case.’ ” (In re E.D. (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 960, 966.)
   B. Relevant Law
      Section 309, subdivision (e)(1) provides that, if a child is removed from
parental custody, the social worker must conduct an investigation in order to
identify and locate all adult relatives of the child. The social worker must use
“due diligence” in investigating the names and locations of these relatives.
(Id., subd. (e)(3).) “[A]dult relatives” include all grandparents, adult relatives
who are “suggested by the parents,” and other adults who are “related to the
identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity” “within the fifth degree of
kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is
preceded by the words ‘great,’ ‘great-great,’ or ‘grand,’ or the spouse of any of
these persons.” (Id., subd. (e)(1), § 319, subd. (h)(2).)
      Section 309, subdivision (e)(1)(A) requires the social worker to provide
written notification within 30 days of removal to all adult relatives who are
located (with certain exceptions not applicable here) that the child has been

                                         7
removed from parental custody. Section 309, subdivision (e)(1)(B) requires
that the notice include “[a]n explanation of the various options to participate
in the care and placement of the child and support for the child’s family,
including any options that may be lost by failing to respond.” The social
worker must provide written notification as well as “oral notification, in
person or by telephone,” whenever appropriate. (Id., subd. (e)(1).)
      In addition to the notice set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code
section 309, California Rules of Court, rule 5.534(b)(3) (rule 5.534(b)(3))
requires the social worker to give any located relative a copy of the
“Important Information for Relatives” document as distributed in the
Department of Social Services All County Letter No. 09-86, as well as
Judicial Council Forms, form JV-285 (Relative Information) and form JV-287
(Confidential Information). Among other things, form JV-285 asks relatives
to identify ways in which they may want to help the child, parents, or social
worker, and to provide contact information for other relatives who might be
able to help the child.
      Section 358, subdivision (b)(2) provides that, if the child is removed
from parental custody at the time of disposition, the court “shall make a
finding as to whether the social worker has exercised due diligence in
conducting the investigation, as required pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (e) of Section 309, to identify, locate, and notify the child’s
relatives.” When making this finding, the court may consider examples of
due diligence that include, among other things, whether the social worker has
(1) obtained information about the location of relatives; (2) reviewed the case
file for any information regarding relatives; (3) telephoned, emailed, or
visited all identified relatives; (4) asked located relatives for the names and
locations of others; and (5) used online search tools. (§ 358, subd. (b)(3)(B)–

                                         8
(F); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(f)(2)–(6).) When the court finds the social
worker has not used due diligence, the court may order the social worker “to
exercise due diligence in conducting an investigation to identify, locate, and
notify the child’s relatives” and “may require a written or oral report to the
court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695(e)(2).)
   C. Analysis
      The record here does not reflect substantial evidence that the
Department used due diligence to identify, locate, contact, and notify Minors’
adult relatives pursuant to section 309, subdivision (e) and rule 5.534(b)(3).
      The Department’s detention and jurisdictional/dispositional reports
indicate that the social worker contacted the maternal and paternal
grandmothers as part of the ICWA inquiry. The record does not reflect any
actual discussion of Minors’ placement or the grandmothers’ interest in
otherwise participating in the case. Minors’ parents also identified a
maternal aunt, as well as other relatives in Mississippi and Arkansas, but
there is nothing in the record to show that the social worker attempted to
locate or contact these relatives.
      It appears that most, if not all, of these relatives live outside of
California—be it in Mississippi or Arkansas. It is also entirely possible that
geography would present a bar to relative placement in either of those states,
since doing so could make reunification with Mother and/or Father extremely
difficult and might be contrary to Minors’ best interests. But nothing in the
language of section 309, subdivision (e) excludes out-of-state relatives from
the investigation the Department was required to perform. The Department
does not contend otherwise.
      The parties dispute whether the Department’s investigation efforts can
be appropriately analogized to those found adequate in the S.K. decision. In

                                         9
that case, the mother challenged the juvenile court’s due diligence finding
based on the social worker’s alleged failure to (1) obtain contact information
for a maternal great-aunt, and (2) search records in any other dependency
case involving the father to locate information about his relatives. (S.K.,
supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 38.) The appellate court concluded that the
finding was supported by substantial evidence because the juvenile court had
repeatedly ordered mother to disclose all known contact information for
relatives, the social worker had repeatedly called the mother and maternal
grandmother to get the maternal great-aunt’s contact information without
response, and the mother had limited the social worker’s ability to search for
the maternal great-aunt’s contact information by providing the wrong last
name. (Ibid.) The social worker had also searched multiple databases for the
father, but had come up with no results. (Ibid.)
      Here, even accepting the Department’s representation that the parents
have been generally “elusive” and “evasive” in this matter, S.K. is
distinguishable. Unlike in S.K., the social worker here made contact with
certain relatives. But the record fails to show that the social worker acted
with due diligence in providing located relatives with the necessary
information, asking them about other relatives. Nor does it show that the
social worker investigated other relatives identified by Minors’ parents. It is
possible that the social worker did not develop the record because they had
rejected the possibility of any placement based on geography, but that is
speculation and is not reflected in the record.
      In addition to the lack of due diligence in identifying, locating, and
contacting adult relatives, there is no evidence that the social worker
provided any relatives (grandmothers or otherwise) with written notice of
Minors’ removal and an explanation of the various options to participate in

                                       10
Minors’ care, placement, and support as required by section 309,
subdivision (e). Nor is there any evidence that the social worker provided any
adult relatives with the documents required by rule 5.534(b)(3).
      We are not persuaded by the Department’s suggestion that there is
sufficient evidence of notice because “the social worker was able to contact
each grandmother to discuss the case.” As a preliminary matter, the extent
of any such discussion is not reflected anywhere in the record. Further, oral
notice by phone does not dispel the requirement for written notice under
section 309, subdivision (e) and rule 5.534(b)(3). (See In re R.T. (2015) 232
Cal.App.4th 1284, 1296 [explaining oral advisement of the “placement
process” was insufficient, as “[t]here is little reason to believe that the oral
advisements sufficiently informed the relatives of the many aspects of the
placement process that the statute requires be conveyed in writing”].) No
written notice was provided here.
                            III.   Error Not Harmless
      The Department argues that, even if there was insufficient evidence to
support the juvenile court’s due diligence findings, any error was harmless.
We “typically apply a harmless-error analysis when a statutory mandate is
disobeyed,” where error “ ‘is reversible only if it is reasonably probable the
result would have been more favorable to [appellant] absent the error.’ ” (In
re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588, 624–625.) Here, the Department contends
that any error on the due diligence findings is harmless because Mother had
“various opportunities” to “raise the issue of relative assessment and/or
placement,” but failed to do so.
      The Department’s harmless error argument ignores the purposes of
relative investigation beyond assessment and placement. (See In re R.T.,
supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296 [explaining that written notice of “many

                                        11
aspects” of placement process is required].) As explained above, section 309,
subdivision (e)(1)(B) requires written notice to located relatives that includes
“explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of
the child and support for the child’s family.” Among the documents required
to be sent under rule 5.534(b)(3), form JV-285 lists options for relative
participation beyond assessment and placement, including visits with the
child, contact with the child by telephone or letter, and assistance to the
social worker on the case plan for the child. The form also allows located
relatives to identify other relatives who might be able to help the child.
      In sum, there is no evidence that the Department exercised due
diligence in identifying and investigating Minors’ adult relatives, or that any
relatives (including the identified and contacted grandmothers) received the
required notice detailing various options for participation. We cannot
conclude that the error on the due diligence findings was harmless.3
                                DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s January 20, 2023 dispositional findings that the
Department exercised due diligence in identifying, locating, and contacting
Minors’ relatives are reversed. We remand the matter with directions for the
juvenile court to (1) order the Department to exercise due diligence to
identify, locate, contact, and notify Minors’ relatives pursuant to section 309,
subdivision (e) and rule 5.534(b)(3); (2) direct the Department to prepare a
supplemental jurisdictional/dispositional report describing its additional
efforts; and (3) set a continued dispositional hearing at the earliest
convenient time, for the purpose of considering whether the Department

      3 Given this conclusion, we deem Mother’s arguments related to

potential future relative assessment(s) and placement to be premature.
                                       12
has since exercised due diligence. The January 20, 2023 jurisdictional and
dispositional orders are affirmed in all other respects.

                                       13
                                         _________________________
                                         Markman, J.*

We concur:

_________________________
Stewart, P.J.

_________________________
Miller, J.

In re K.B. et al. (A167385)

     * Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                    14
Filed 11/30/23

                       CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

         IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                          FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                 DIVISION TWO

 In re K.B. et al., Persons Coming
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND
 SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT,                   A167385

         Plaintiff and Respondent,             (Solano County Super. Ct.
 v.                                            Nos. J45625 & J45626)
 D.B.,
                                               ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION
         Defendant and Appellant.              FOR PUBLICATION

         The opinion in the above-entitled matter, filed on November 3, 2023,
was not certified for publication. For good cause, appellant’s request for
publication is granted.
         Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105, the opinion is
ordered certified for publication in the Official Reports.

Dated: ___________________                   _________________________
                                             Stewart, P.J.

                                         1
Trial Court:                  Solano County Superior Court

Trial Judge:                  Hon. Dora M. Rios

Attorney for Defendant
and Appellant:                By Appointment of the Court of Appeal
                              Under the First District Appellate Project
                              Mara L. Bernstein

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Respondent:                   Office of Solano County Counsel
                              Bernadette S. Curry
                              Carrie Blacklock
                              Ana Oldwin

                                2