Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re G. P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. G. P

December 8, 2010

IN RE G. P. ET AL., PERSONS COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
G. P., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



G. P., father of the minors, appeals from the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 §§ 360, 395.) Appellant contends reversal is required because the juvenile court failed to inform him of his rights and take a personal waiver prior to the jurisdiction hearing, thereby denying him due process. We affirm.(Super. Ct. No. J02301)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie J.

In re G.P. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

FACTS

In 2001, K. B., age nine, was removed from the custody of the mother and appellant, who was her boyfriend at the time, due to domestic violence in the home, inappropriate punishment, and injuries inflicted on the minor. The petition was dismissed.

In 2003, K. B., age 11, and Ge. P., age 17 months, were removed from appellant and the mother due to neglect and domestic violence. That dependency was terminated in 2005.

In June 2009, K. B., age 17, Ge. P., age 7, and J. P., age 4, were removed from the custody of mother and appellant due to appellant's arrest on violence-related warrants, the mother's hospitalization with severe injuries inflicted by appellant, parental substance abuse, and chronic neglect of the minors. Appellant was present at the detention hearing and waived reading of the advisement of rights and the possible consequences of any plea.

At the jurisdiction hearing on July 8, 2009, only the mother was present. She was advised of her rights and entered a plea of no contest. The juvenile court sustained the petition. At the next hearing appellant was not present and his counsel requested a contested jurisdiction hearing. Appellant remained in custody; however, the social worker did make service referrals for treatment for him.

Appellant appeared at the October 14, 2009, hearing, having been released from custody. Appellant was in residential treatment and counsel requested additional time to confer with appellant regarding subpoenaing witnesses. The court granted the continuance and admonished appellant to meet with counsel and go over the case so witnesses could be subpoenaed.

At the next hearing, appellant expressed a wish to continue the case to hire counsel. The court denied the request as untimely. Appellant asked the court to explain what the current and prior hearings were about. The court described the jurisdiction and disposition process and clarified that the present hearing was for jurisdiction. The court also confirmed that appellant could, at a later date have counsel relieved and either hire counsel or proceed on his own behalf, but that he would not be permitted to proceed on his own behalf in the current contested jurisdiction hearing. The hearing proceeded without objection to admission of the report in evidence and without witnesses or other evidence. The court asked if the matter was submitted or if the parties wished to argue. Counsel for appellant stated appellant's position was that he objected to the court taking jurisdiction. The court, recognizing the difficulties faced by appellant in actively contesting the case due to his pending criminal case, sustained the petition and set a disposition hearing.

Appellant did not appear at the disposition hearing in January 2010. Counsel expressed concerns about the inclusion of a domestic violence program in the case plan because the program would probably require admissions which appellant could not make with the criminal case pending. The court acknowledged the concern and adopted the recommended findings and orders.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends reversal is required because the juvenile court did not advise him of his rights including the right to counsel; the right not to incriminate himself; the right to confront and cross-examine the preparer of the reports; the right to subpoena witnesses and present evidence to the court; the right to receive reports, discovery, and documents filed with the court; the right to a hearing on the petition; and the right to have the minors returned to his custody within two days if the court did not sustain the petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.534(k), 5.682(b).) Appellant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.