IN RE LISA D

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. B045405.

Attorney(S)

COUNSEL Alys Briggs, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants. David Nawi, County Counsel, and Mary Ellen Barilotti, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Judges

Arthur Gilbert

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The three minor children of John D. have been in continuous foster care since his arrest and incarceration in 1984. They have lived with Mary Ellen Staab, their current foster mother, for nearly three and one-half years. In May 1988, the trial court modified the permanent plan for the children to one of guardianship. On September 19, 1989, the court continued the children as dependent children and appointed Mrs. Staab as their guardian. This appointment was supported by a social study report and the testimony of Mrs. Staab. John D. appeals the order, contending that the social study report supporting the guardianship was statutorily deficient under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.25, subdivision (e).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the social study report supporting the appointment of a guardian complied with the mandatory requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.25, subdivision (e).
Whether the deficiency in the social study report warrants reversal of the guardianship appointment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The social study report failed to comply with the mandatory directives of section 366.25, subdivision (e).

Respondent's Arguments

The County of Santa Barbara conceded that the social study report was deficient in not discussing the proposed guardian's social history, criminal record screening, referrals for child abuse or neglect, and understanding of guardianship rights and responsibilities.
The County argued that John D. had not shown he was harmed by the deficiency or that a corrected report would produce a more favorable outcome.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.25, subdivision (e), which mandates that before appointing a guardian, the court must consider a social study report that includes a discussion of the proposed guardian’s social history, criminal record screening, prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, and the guardian’s understanding of the legal and financial responsibilities of guardianship. The report must be admitted into evidence and the author may be called as a witness.

The court found that the social study report supporting Mrs. Staab’s appointment as guardian was deficient, lacking discussion of the required elements. Although the County conceded these deficiencies, it argued no harm was shown. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the statutory requirements, designed to protect dependent children from risks of abuse by ensuring the court has complete and accurate information about the proposed guardian.

Furthermore, the court recognized John D.'s standing as the natural parent, whose rights had not been terminated, to challenge the adequacy of the report. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the guardianship appointment could not stand without a proper social study report.

Holding and Implications

The court REVERSED the order appointing Mary Ellen Staab as guardian of John D.'s children due to the statutory deficiencies in the social study report.

The case was remanded with instructions that the County prepare a social study report fully compliant with the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.25, subdivision (e). The direct effect is the invalidation of the guardianship appointment until proper statutory procedures are followed. The opinion does not establish new precedent but reinforces the mandatory procedural protections for dependent children in guardianship proceedings.

Show full summary ...

In re LISA D. et al., Persons Coming Under the Ju v. nile Court Law. CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Plaintiffs and Respondents,

OPINION

GILBERT, J.

John D. appeals the order on a six-month permanency plan review hearing. The order continued his children's status as dependent children and appointed Mary Ellen Staab as their guardian. We reverse the order appointing Mrs. Staab as guardian because the social study report supporting guardianship was statutorily deficient. (Welf. Inst. Code, § 366.25, subd. (e).)

All statutory references are to the California Welfare and Institutions Code.

FACTS

The three minor children of John D. have been in continuous foster care since his arrest and incarceration in 1984. They have resided with Mary Ellen Staab, their present foster mother, for nearly three and one-half years. In May 1988 the trial court modified the permanent plan concerning the children to one of guardianship. On September 19, 1989, the court continued the children as dependent children and appointed Mrs. Staab as their guardian. A social study report and the testimony of Mrs. Staab supported her appointment.

(1) John D. appeals the trial court's order and contends the social study report failed to comply with the mandatory directives of section 366.25, subdivision (e). We agree.

The children's natural mother, Susan D., is deceased.

DISCUSSION

Section 366.25, subdivision (e) requires the court to consider a social study report prior to appointing a proposed guardian. The report "shall include . . . a discussion of . . . (1) [a] social history of the proposed guardian, including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect [and] (5) [t]he proposed guardian's understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of guardianship." The person preparing this report may be called as a witness at the hearing on proposed guardianship by any party.

The report proposing Mrs. Staab as guardian did not discuss her social history, screening for criminal records and referrals for child abuse and neglect, or her understanding of the rights and responsibilities of guardianship. The County of Santa Barbara concedes the report was deficient in these particulars but contends John D. has not established that he has been harmed or that a more favorable result would ensue from a corrected report.

Subdivision (e) of section 366.25 describes the juvenile court's responsibility in deciding the appointment of a proposed guardian. The subdivision requires the court to "read and consider" the social study report prior to ruling on the guardianship petition. The court must receive the report into evidence and the author of the report must testify if called by any party. These are mandatory requirements imposed upon the court as enacted by the Legislature to assist the court in protecting children from risk of physical, emotional or sexual abuse. (See intent of the Legislature set forth in § 300.) In implementing this responsibility and in safeguarding the welfare of dependent children, the juvenile court must possess complete and accurate information concerning the children and their proposed guardian.

John D.'s rights as a natural parent have not been terminated by the court. He retains the right to visit his children according to the terms of an existing court order and must reimburse the county for their care according to section 903. He possesses standing to challenge the adequacy of the social study report proposing Mrs. Staab as guardian for his children.

Upon remand, the county shall prepare a social study report complying with the requirements set forth in subdivision (e) of section 366.25.

Accordingly, the order is reversed.

Stone (S.J.), P.J., and Abbe, J., concurred.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.