California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
IN RE WILLIAM M.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
v.
William W. et al., Defendants and Appellants. Alameda County Social Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent,
[256
Cal.Rptr.3d 744] Alameda County Superior Court, Hon. Charles
Smiley (Alameda County Super. Ct. Nos. JD 029265-01, JD
029266-01)
Page 574
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 575
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 576
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 577
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 578
COUNSEL
Valerie
N. Lankford, San Diego, by appointment of the Court of
Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants.
Boies
Schiller Flexner, Maxwell V. Pritt, Oakland, for California
Juvenile Court Advocates as amicus curiae on behalf of
Defendants and Appellants.
Donna
R. Ziegler, County Counsel, Samantha N. Stonework, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Sanchez,
J.
Page 579
We are
tasked with determining whether a juvenile court is mandated
or permitted to order a county child welfare agency to
provide discovery to the parents of dependent minors at no
cost in dependency proceedings. Both William W. (father) and
Kathryn M. (mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s refusal
to order the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency)
to deliver requested discovery electronically and at no cost
in advance of a contested review hearing involving their two
young sons, William M.W. (born in 2014) and William Z.W.
(born in 2017). We conclude that no court rule, statute, or
constitutional principle requires the discovery order sought
by parents in this case. However, should a circumstance arise
where an indigent parent’s meaningful access to the judicial
process is impaired by discovery requirements, the juvenile
court has the authority to fix the time, place, and manner of
discovery upon such terms and conditions as will serve the
ends of justice and the purposes of the juvenile court law.
Because the juvenile court below incorrectly determined it
had no such authority, we remand the matter so that the court
may exercise its discretion in the first instance to decide
whether any further discovery order is necessary under the
specific facts of this case.
I. BACKGROUND
In
January 2018, the Agency filed a petition alleging that
William M.W. and William Z.W. came within the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court under subdivisions (b) and [256
Cal.Rptr.3d 745] (g) of section 300 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code[1] due to certain conduct by parents. The
petition detailed several domestic violence incidents during
which the minors witnessed physical and verbal abuse. There
were also substance abuse and mental health concerns raised.
In
Page 580
April 2018, the Agency filed an amended petition detaining
the minors from both parents. After further amendments to the
petition, the court found the allegations true, declared the
minors to be juvenile court dependents, formally removed them
from parents’ care, and ordered reunification services.
In
September 2018, parents were notified that the Judicial
Council— who selects and pays for attorneys to
represent parents in juvenile dependency cases (see Gov.
Code, � � 77003, subd. (a)(4), 77200)— had chosen a new
organization to provide legal representation to parents of
dependent minors in Alameda County. Specifically, the
Judicial Council had entered into a Dependency
Representation, Administration, Funding and Training
Agreement with East Bay Family Defenders (EBFD). As a result,
EBFD attorneys were appointed as substitute counsel for both
mother and father, effective September 1, 2018.
In
advance of the December 2018 six-month review hearing, the
Agency filed a status review report recommending that
reunification services continue for both parents. However, in
a January 2019 report, the Agency reconsidered, and
recommended termination of reunification and referral for
selection of a permanent plan. The matter was set for a
contested hearing in February 2019.
In
advance of the contested hearing, EBFD filed a joint motion
to compel discovery, seeking a juvenile court order that
copies of relevant discovery be provided by the Agency to
both parents at no cost to them. Father and mother sent
letters to the Agency memorializing this request and asking
that the discovery be either faxed, provided on a USB flash
drive, or produced as printed copies. The Agency, however,
refused to comply with parents’ request.
The
Agency argued that the motion lacked merit because it had
fulfilled its discovery obligations by making discovery
available to parents for inspection in accordance with its
usual protocol. Specifically, attorneys for both parents had
been notified that the redacted discovery materials would be
ready for their review on February 1, 2019. Once counsel
reviewed the discovery and identified the documents they
would like duplicated, the Agency was willing to provide
copies at a rate of $.10 per page. Parents’ counsel was also
allowed to take pictures of desired documents or to otherwise
copy them using their own supplies without charge by the
Agency. The Agency argued that any order by the juvenile
court requiring it to expend funds to provide the discovery
free of charge to parents was impermissible because no
statute authorizes such an order and it would violate
separation of powers principles and constitute a gift of
public funds.
Page 581
At the
hearing on the parents’ discovery matter, parents’ counsel
asserted that free discovery was required in this case under
constitutional principles of due process and equal
protection. The Agency maintained that its obligation to
disclose did not extend to copying and production of
discoverable materials. After argument, the juvenile court
denied the discovery motion. It stated that it was denying
parents’ request because it believed it would otherwise
"be [256 Cal.Rptr.3d 746] acting in excess of its
authority given the current state of the statutory law."
The court further noted that the Agency had already made the
discovery available, but parents’ counsel had declined to go
to the Agency’s office and inspect it. In the court’s view,
the Agency’s obligation under the law was "to make those
records available, period, and then counsel can decide on
their own if they want to copy the whole file or just one
page." Parents’ counsel "should get an opportunity
to review the discovery and then make whatever copies they
need because they know their clients’ cases best."
Both
mother and father timely appealed from the denial of their
motion to compel.[2] In addition, in August 2019, we
granted the application of California Juvenile Court
Advocates (CJCA) to file an amicus curiae brief in support of
parents’ position. The Agency filed a ...