Dependency Case Law

In re Angela C. (June 14, 2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 389 [120 Cal.Rptr.2d 922]. Court of Appeal, Fifth District.

The juvenile court terminated a mother's rights.

The court adjudged a child a dependent of the court based on the mother's physical abuse of the child. After a year of unsuccessful reunification efforts, the court terminated services. The mother did not attend the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing, which was continued. The mother also did not attend the continued hearing, where her parental rights were terminated. The mother then appealed the juvenile court's decision, arguing that she had not received notice of the continuance of the termination hearing.

The Court of Appeal found that the mother had not received notice and that this error was a violation of due process but was harmless. Section 366.23 states that a person is entitled to special notice of a section 366.26 hearing. When a court continues that hearing, a parent remains entitled to notice of the continued hearing date. Only if the parent is present in trial when the continuance is announced is the court not required to meet the precise terms of section 366.23 in the case of a continuance. In this case, the mother received notice of the initial hearing, but the record is silent as to any notice to her of the continued hearing. The question is: Under what standard should the error of lack of notice for a continued hearing be evaluated? The mother argued that the lack of notice is per se prejudicial. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that even though the lack of notice is a constitutional error, constitutional error (although subject to at least a heightened standard of prejudice) does not automatically require reversal. The court held that lack of notice of a continuance is a trial error-not a structural error, which implicates the fundamental fairness of proceedings and so would require per se reversal. The error of lack of notice for a continuance merely affects the way the court conducts the hearing, in that it becomes an uncontested hearing, which, the court notes, is how the initial hearing would have been conducted since the mother was absent from that hearing as well. Thus, the error is to be evaluated under the Chapman harmless-error standard. Because the child was thriving in placement and the agency's assessment of the child's adoptability met statutory requirements, the Court of Appeal held that the failure to notify the mother of the continued termination hearing date was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The juvenile court's decision was affirmed.