WPC F'`(`h\'e~g.X;"q#*c[G]Ztl.|Wд*>b488Ir #\xy["%kW ZrWk}{!>A[-ƪW&OT0=G}\e6B%  |Gp+uVYJ\ w,>{C-χEt(ij*,LXnb!82Ro:{DhI[, Kah3 #0k= @qLMuMAٯtӈ w(=* `1?âtKT0zvsc~efEbmvyAȔ V D3mHRK䴉MwZ Θ 09!9߲Q@τӸ.kFZaJqHi xڀͱ  l/Ij.kJc-݉nj %WQ #}T^PPZX#UN % 0Y U:F ^ w 4   m 1s 72? 1uq 72 0b 0wz N 0 0D{ { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { { {  0 0 0eKKKKKKKKKK BHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,Ԅ`AZ"Arial Regularܺb4 yI4:i+003|xU337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) 1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(:h$2   .3  0  (OL<$0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#(8(2}$ !   `   0  (#$  0  A, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5P#2,A, B,Uppercase Letters+  .0 +I, II,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5N#4.I, II,Uppercase Roman3  .0 34#22Quick A.+  .0 + d !SXXUSUS.,  _ (33"h"  'S h2  I  .3  0    THEADJUDICATIONOF[MINOR(S)]ASDEPENDENTSOFTHE  JUVENILECOURTINTHEABSENCEOF[PARENTS]EXPRESS  WAIVEROFTHERIGHTTOACONTESTEDHEARINGAND  ASSOCIATEDRIGHTSWASAVIOLATIONOF[PARENTS]RIGHTTO  DUEPROCESS.h,݌(#(# Ќ  "L<"  L<0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  TheJuvenileCourtIsRequiredToObtainAParentsExpress   WaiverAfterFullyInformingHerOfHerRightToAContested   Hearing. L<(݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  8  Wehaveemphasizedtimeandagainthat thetouchstoneofdue   processisprotectionoftheindividualagainstarbitraryactionof   government,[citation],whetherthefaultliesinadenialof   fundamentalproceduralfairness,[citation],orintheexerciseof   powerwithoutanyreasonablejustificationintheserviceofa   legitimategovernmentalobjective,[citation].   (CountyofSacramentov.Lewis(1998)523U.S.833,845846[140_L.Ed_.2d p 1043,118_S.Ct_.1708].) ` 8  [Theconceptofproceduraldueprocess] hastraditionallyinvolved P theelaborationofproceduralsafeguardsdesignedtoaccordtothe H individualtherighttobeheardbeforebeingcondemnedtosuffer @ grievouslossofanykindasaresultofgovernmentalchoices[.]... 8 Proceduraldueprocessthusfocusesupontheessentialand 0 fundamentalelementsoffairnessofaprocedurewhichwould (x deprivetheindividualofimportantrights. p   (InreCrystalJ.(1993)12_Cal.App_.4th407,412,quotingTribe,American !` ConstitutionalLaw(2ded.1988)atpage664;InreB.G.(1974)11Cal.3d679, #P 689[dueprocessinthecontextofjuveniledependencyproceedingsrequiresthe $@ ! opportunitytobeheardgenerally].) &0"#   Thus,everyparentoverwhosechildthejuvenilecourtisaskedtotake ( $% jurisdictionisentitledtoacontestedhearinginaccordancewiththerighttodue *&' processundertheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.(In ,() reMarilynH.(1993)5Cal.4th295,307308;InreMoniqueT.(1992)2  _Cal.App_.4th1372,13751377.)Accordingly,rule1412(j)oftheCaliforniaRules  ofCourtprovidesthatthejuvenilecourtmustadviseeachparentinajuvenile  dependencycaseofthefollowing:   8  (1)Anyrighttoasserttheprivilegeagainstselfincrimination;p    8  (2)Therighttoconfrontandcrossexaminethepersonswho `  preparedreportsordocumentssubmittedtothecourtbythe X  petitioner,andthewitnessescalledtotestifyatthehearing;P    8  (3)Therighttousetheprocessofthecourttobringinwitnesses;@    8  (4)Therighttopresentevidencetothecourt.0   G  Then,thejuvenilecourtmustadviseeachparentofhisorherrightto a  p hearingbythecourtontheissuesraisedbythepetition,andthecourtmustask ` eachparentwhetherheorsheadmitsordeniestheallegations.(Cal.Rulesof P Ct.,rule1449(c).)Anadmissionmustbemadepersonally,andbeforeaccepting @ it,thecourtmustfindthattheparentunderstoodandwaivedthepreviously 0 enumeratedrights.(Cal.RulesofCt.,rules1449(d)and1449(f).)Unlessa   parentexpresslywaivesherrighttoacontestedhearing,ifshedeniesthe ! allegationscontainedinapetition, thecourtshallholdacontestedhearingand #  determinewhethertheallegationsaretrue.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rules1449(e) % " and1450(a);InreStacyT.(1997)42_Cal.App_.4th1415,1422[a default '"$ procedurewhichbypassestherightsdescribedinrules1412and1449violatesa )$& partysfederalconstitutionalrighttodueprocess];SteveJ.v.SuperiorCourt p+&( (1995)35_Cal.App_.4th798,812;InreTommyE.(1992)7_Cal.App_.4th1234, `-(* 1237.)    [A]parenthassubstantialprivateinterestsatstakeinasection300  proceeding[because]aparentcanlosecustodyifthesection300petitionis  sustained.Similarly,parentshavesignificantdignityinterestsinbeingfullyand   fairlyabletopresenttheirsides.(Inre_Malinda_ԀS.(1990)51Cal.3d368,383 p  384,citationsomitted.) Moreover,theFirstAmendmentprotectsthose `  relationships,includingfamilyrelationships,thatpresupposedeepattachments P  andcommitmentstothenecessarilyfewotherindividualswithwhomoneshares @  notonlyaspecialcommunityofthoughts,experiences,andbeliefsbutalso 0 distinctivelypersonalaspectsofoneslife.(BoardofDirectorsv.RotaryClub  p (1987)481U.S.537,545[95_L.Ed_.2d474,107_S.Ct_.1940];Leev.CountyofLos ` Angeles.(9thCir.2001)250F.3d668,685.)Therighttoremainaunifiedfamilyis P acorebeliefofoursocietyandinterferencewiththatrighthasfarreaching @ ramificationsforthechildaswellastheparent.(InreJoannaY.(1992)8 0 _Cal.App_.4th433,438.)Theriskishighthataparentandchildwillbeerroneously   deprivedofthesubstantiallibertyinterestinremainingaunifiedfamilywhen ! jurisdictionisassumed,asitwashere,andservicesaredenied,astheywere #  here,withoutacontestedhearing,andwithoutanexpresswaiveroftherightto % " suchahearing.(InreStacyT.,supra,42_Cal.App_.4thatpp.14241425;Inre '"$ MoniqueT.,supra,2_Cal.App_.4thatpp.13751377.) )$&   Accordingto_Malinda_ԀS.,supra,theriskthattheseweightyfundamental p+&( rightsmaybeerroneouslyterminatedmustbeevaluatedinlightoflegitimate `-(* governmentalgoals.TheAgencysharestheparentsandthechildrensjoint  interestinanaccurateandjustdecision.(DavidB.v.SuperiorCourt(1994)21  _Cal.App_.4th1010,1018.)Thatgoalisfurtheredbythetruthfindingprocessofa  contestedhearing.Thejuvenilecourtsadvicetotheparentregardingherrightto   acontestedhearinganditsascertainmentwhethertheparentwishestowaive p  thatrightalsoservesthesameobjectivebyprovidingthepossibilitythatthetruth `  canbeexpedientlyandreliablyestablished.Accordingly,thegovernments P  interestinanexpeditiousdeterminationofjurisdictionoverafamilyinorderto @  protectachildswelfareisnotsufficientlyweightytoexcusetheminimal 0 administrativeburdenofconductingacontestedhearing.(InreStacyT.,supra,  p 42_Cal.App_.4thatpp.14241425;InreMoniqueT.,supra,2_Cal.App_.4thatpp. ` 13751377.) P   Therefore,thejuvenilecourtmaynotacceptaparentscounsels @ submissionofthematterwithoutobtainingtheparentsexpresswaiverofher 0 righttoacontestedhearing.Thatisexactlywhatthejuvenilecourtdidhere....     Thus,thefactthat[parent]wasrepresentedbycounseldidnotobviatethe ! needforherexpresswaiver.InMoniqueT.,supra,thejuvenilecourtinquiredof #  counselwhethertheparentwaivedherrighttoadvisementofherdueprocess % " rights.Trialcounselassuredthecourtthatshehadexplainedtheparentsdue '"$ processrightstoher,andthatshewaivedadvisementandwaivedherrighttoa )$& contestedhearing.(InreMoniqueT.,supra,2_Cal.App_.4thatp.1376.)The p+&( courtofappealheldthatinlightoftherepresentationsbycounselandthe `-(* absenceofanyindicationthattheparentactuallycontestedtheallegations,the  errorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.,atp.1378.)Bycontrast,as  previouslystated,totheextentanyinformationwassoughtfrom[parent],she  informedthesocialworkerthatshewantedtoparticipateinthejurisdiction   hearingand....Thereisnoindicationintherecordthateitherthecourtor p  counseladvised[parent]ofherrighttocontesttheallegations,orinquired `  whethershewishedtowaiveit.Noristherearepresentationbycounselthat P  [parent]wishedtowaiveherrights. @  #S' #"L<"  'SL<-,0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  Prejudice L<-,|,݌0` (#` (# Ќ    Thedeprivationoftherighttoacontestedhearingintheabsenceofan 0 expresswaiverisreversibleunlesstheAgencycanshowtheerrorwasharmless  p beyondareasonabledoubt.(InreStacyT.,supra,42_Cal.App_.4thatp.1426;In ` reMoniqueT.,supra,2_Cal.App_.4thatp.1377.) P   InStacyT.,theCourtofAppealaddressedtheimproperuseof default @ judgmentsinjuveniledependencyproceedings.Inassessingtheprejudicial 0 effectofdeprivingtheparentoftheopportunitytocontesttheallegationsofthe !  petition,thecourtwasrequired toconsiderthat[theparent]mighthavetestified #  onherownbehalf.Further,thecourtrefusedto speculateastothesubstance %!" oreffectofsuchtestimony,excepttoassume itwouldhavetobearonissues '"$ beforethecourt.(InreStacyT.,supra,42_Cal.App_.4thatp.1426.) )$&   #S'],#'S[Parenthadpreviouslytoldthesocialworkerthatshewantedtoattendand +&(  participateinthejurisdictionhearing.ShealsotoldtheAgencyshelovedher p-(* children,andshewasconcernedaboutthembeinginfostercare.Further,the  evidenceshowedthatparentwasnotdirectlyresponsiblefortheeventsthatgave  risetothepetition.Rather,thematernalgrandmothersnegligentsupervision  resultedin....Hadparentbeengiventheopportunitytocontesttheallegations,   shemaywellhaveprovidedevidenceregarding...,suchthatreunificationmay p  havebeenpossiblewithinstatutorytimelimitations.Shemayalsohaveprovided `  informationregardingothercaregiverswhocouldhavetakencustodyofthe P  children....#S'@2#