Other Cases Affecting Children

In re Marcus G. (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 1008 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 84]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5.

The juvenile court dismissed the dependency proceedings of a child who was also a ward of the court. The child originally became a dependent of the court when he was four months old. At a six-month status review hearing, almost fifteen years into the dependency, the court discovered the child was arrested for robbery. The child was declared a ward of the court. The Department of Human Services (DHS) then petitioned the court to dismiss the dependency proceedings, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. DHS submitted a social worker’s report along with the petition that recommended termination of the dependency proceedings. The court granted the petition and the child appealed the ruling.

The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court’s handling of the dual jurisdiction problem was not proper. Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.1 sets forth the proper procedure for handling dual jurisdiction problems. As a starting point, the court held a child could not be both a dependent and a ward of the court according to section 241.1. Once it is determined that there is a dual jurisdiction problem, the child must be assessed by both the probation and the welfare departments of the county according to a jointly written protocol. The two assessments must be submitted to the juvenile court along with the petition that created the dual jurisdiction problem. Notice of the latter proceeding creating the dual jurisdiction problem must be given to the juvenile court that first exercised its jurisdiction over the child. However, the court that created the dual jurisdiction must make the determination of whether the child should be treated as a ward or a dependent. The appellate court determined that the statutory procedure was not followed in this case. The decision to terminate the dependency proceedings was made in the context of the dependency case, not the delinquency proceedings, which were the proceedings that caused the dual jurisdiction problem. There is no record in the delinquency proceedings that wardship status would be a more appropriate status than dependency and as such the determination was improperly made within the dependency proceedings.

The appellate court held that even assuming that the dual jurisdiction issue was properly a part of the dependency proceedings, the decision was made in reliance on the social worker’s assessment alone, which is improper considering that the statute requires a probation assessment as well.

The appellate court reversed the order dismissing the dependency proceedings and remanded the case to the juvenile court to determine if the procedures set forth in section 241.1 were followed within the delinquency proceedings. If the procedures were followed within the delinquency proceedings, then the court could reinstate its order dismissing the dependency; but, the procedures were not followed, then the court must order the probation and welfare departments to come into compliance with section 241.1 and submit assessments.