Dependency Case Law

In re J.C. (Dec. 23, 2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 984 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 671]. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2.

Following an initial transfer to the juvenile court of Los Angeles County, the juvenile court of Riverside County rejected the transfer of dependency proceedings back to Riverside on three occasions. The proceedings involved four children in a permanent plan of long-term foster care with their grandmother in Riverside County. After institution of the permanent plan, the juvenile court of Riverside County transferred the case to the juvenile court of Los Angeles County because the mother moved there. The case bounced back and forth between the two courts five times in a period of nine months. All parties involved in the proceedings agreed that the case should remain in the Riverside County juvenile court. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (department) appealed the Riverside County juvenile court’s decision to reject the transfer of the case, arguing that the juvenile court ignored the procedural mandate of rule 1426(a) of the California Rules of Court when it rejected the transfer.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Riverside County juvenile court and held that (1) under rule 1426(a), governing intercounty transfers, the receiving court could not reject a transfer or transfer a case back to the transferring court and (2) the best interest of the children required that they be supervised in the county in which they and their grandmother resided. The appellate court reasoned that rule 1426(a) clearly indicates that, during an intercounty transfer, the receiving court cannot transfer the case back to the transferring court after accepting jurisdiction. The appellate court also held that the children’s best interests require that they be supervised by the juvenile court of Riverside County, where the grandmother resides, because family reunification with the mother was not the focus of the proceedings, given that the mother had made little progress in her case plan. The appellate court stated that if the receiving court disagreed with the residency finding of the transferring court, it could have either filed an appeal of the transferring court’s finding (rule 1426(f)) or had a transfer-out hearing separate from the transfer-in hearing, at which it would determine the children’s residency and whether the transfer to the county of the child or parent’s residence (or in this case, to the grandmother’s residence) would serve their best interests (rule 1425(e)). Therefore, the appellate court reversed the juvenile court’s decision to reject the transfer of the case from the Los Angeles County juvenile court.