Other Cases Affecting Children

Alliance for Children's Rights v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Fam. Services (Feb. 1, 2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1129 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 288]. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1.

The juvenile court refused to issue a blanket order prohibiting the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) from waiving monthly social worker visits with dependents, but found that each DCFS waiver should be submitted to the dependency judge supervising the particular dependent child for approval at a noticed hearing. Alliance for Children's Rights (Alliance) believed that DCFS routinely approved waivers for budgetary reasons rather than case-appropriate reasons to accommodate high social worker caseloads. DCFS regulations generally require social workers to visit dependents monthly. However, the regulations do permit DCFS to approve less frequent visits under specified circumstances, such as when the child has been in a stable, positive placement for a long period. Alliance petitioned the juvenile court for a special order prohibiting waivers of social worker visitation. DCFS opposed it, and both parties submitted evidentiary support for its position. The parties and the court agreed that the court could consider all of the evidence and exhibits submitted by both parties, and the court held a hearing.

At the hearing, the parties and court discussed, among other issues, the authority of the court with respect to DCFS regulations regarding social worker visitation and the number of waivers issued by DCFS. DCFS admitted that the juvenile court has the authority to order DCFS to visit children monthly or more frequently on a case-by-case basis. The juvenile court tentatively ruled that it would issue an order establishing a process by which DCFS would submit a request to the court when seeking a waiver from the monthly visitation rule. The court noted that it would provide greater detail on what information would be required if DCFS made such a request.

Months later, the juvenile court held a second hearing and found that visitation waivers are common practice in Los Angeles County. The juvenile court ordered DCFS to submit a waiver report to the judicial officer presiding over that particular case and notice the other parties. The report was to include information regarding whether DCFS had considered the waiver request, written documentation of DCFS's determination, and grounds for the waiver request. The juvenile court also ordered that a judicial officer set a noticed hearing at the earliest possible date to read and consider the report and other evidence to determine the necessity for a specific order regarding frequency of visitation. The juvenile court also ordered DCFS to provide a list of all dependent children not visited monthly pursuant to a visitation waiver to the presiding judge of the juvenile court or to the judicial officers hearing the cases and to all counsel who regularly practice in each department. DCFS appealed this order.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the juvenile court. The appellate court determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings. The juvenile court must take appropriate action necessary to protect the interests of the child (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317(e)) and make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362(a)). Dependency courts are afforded the best possible scope of discretion in making decisions promoting the best interest of the child. The juvenile court's order does not prohibit waivers because social workers can request a waiver at any time subject to the supervisor's and court's review. The juvenile dependency court has undisputed power to regulate visitation frequency in each case. The appellate court determined that the juvenile court's limited order did not violate the separation of powers or improperly divest DCFS of its discretionary role in the waiver process.