The Court of Appeal finds the juvenile court failed at multiple junctures and in multiple ways to afford proper notice to father of the dependency proceedings and his rights as an alleged father as required by law. The court violated father’s statutory and due process rights which cumulatively resulted in a process that was fundamentally unfair. The order terminating parental rights was reversed and remanded to the juvenile court.

[Published Decision: 11 Cal.5th 234] The Supreme Court held that when an attorney fails to file a timely appeal in accordance with a client’s instructions, the parent may seek relief based on the attorney’s failure to provide competent representation. Whether relief is granted will depend on the parent’s promptness and diligence in pursuing the appeal.

[Published Decision – 54 Cal.App.5th 298] The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court never provided father with notice of the procedure he should follow to establish that he was the minor’s father and protect his parental rights. This failure was prejudicial and the juvenile court’s orders were reversed.

The Court of Appeal agreed that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s denial of appellant’s request for presumed father status. Despite the lack of a biological connection, the Court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to reconsider appellant’s request.

The Court of Appeal determined that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered mother and foster mother to share educational rights over the child. The Court found that the juvenile court used an incorrect legal standard as it did not consider whether limiting the educational rights of mother was necessary to protect the child.

Minors and the mother argued the juvenile court erred when it terminated dependency jurisdiction without allowing a contested hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed. The termination order was reversed and remanded for the juvenile court to hold a contested hearing and to allow appellants to present evidence on the issue.

In this appeal by mother from a status review hearing, the Court of Appeal agreed that the juvenile court erred by granting the request of the de facto parents for disclosure of confidential juvenile case file documents without requiring compliance with WIC section 827 and Rule 5.552.

[Published decision – 33 Cal.App.5th 835]The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it issued exit orders awarding custody of the minor to father and terminating jurisdiction. In reversing the orders of the juvenile court, the Court found that the juvenile court strayed significantly from the statutory framework. The Court also addressed issues relating to the applicability of the UCCJEA and that post-appeal events did not render the appeal moot.

^