Filed 10/28/26 In re K.M. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re K.M., a Person Coming B351881
Under Juvenile Court Law.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP02461)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTIAN M.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, George A. Turner, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Emily Uhre, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, and Bryan Mercke, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
In 2021, respondent Los Angeles Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition on behalf of K.M.
(born Mar. 2011), J.G. (born Dec. 2007), and Isabel G. (born Jan.
2006). The three share a mother (non-party Sandra G.) but have
different fathers. The petition alleged Mother placed the children
at risk of harm but contained no allegations about K.M.’s father,
appellant Christian M. Although Father was non-offending, he
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
After several years, the juvenile court ultimately
determined K.M. could reunite with Mother. As such, the court
set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3641 to
determine whether it could terminate jurisdiction as to K.M.
Notice of the section 364 hearing was mailed to Father’s last
known address.
At the hearing, as part of her argument that Mother should
be granted sole custody, Mother’s counsel revealed that Father
had been incarcerated and was not eligible for parole until
December 2026, something Father’s counsel stated she had not
known.2 Father’s counsel requested the court continue the
hearing to provide proper notice to Father. Instead, the court
awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody of K.M. and
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2 Father’s attorney had been reporting to the court for over
a year that she lacked direction from Father.
2
terminated jurisdiction, pending receipt of a juvenile custody
order (which was received two weeks later).
On appeal, Father contends: (a) the court erred in
proceeding with the section 364 hearing because DCFS provided
him with inadequate notice of the hearing, thus violating his
right to due process; and (b) the error warrants reversal because
it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude
Father’s right to due process was not violated and therefore need
not consider whether any purported error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. DCFS Investigates a Referral
In May 2021, DCFS received a report that Mother was
physically and emotionally abusing her three children, K.M., J.G.
and Isabel G., as well as engaging in domestic violence with her
“female companion” (later identified as “Alex”). A children’s
social worker (CSW) investigated, and Mother denied the
allegations, although she admitted to spanking K.M. on her
buttocks with an open hand.3 K.M. initially denied being
spanked but, after the CSW told her Mother had already
admitted to it, stated she had not been spanked recently. She
denied seeing any domestic violence between Mother and her
partner and denied Mother physically abusing her.
However, J.G. told the CSW that K.M. “gets into trouble a
lot and gets hit by mother mostly with an open hand.” According
to J.G., the last time Mother hit K.M. was the previous day. J.G.
3 Mother identified Isabel’s father as Richard G., and J.G.
and K.M.’s father as Samuel F.
3
also reported she was “scared of what her mother is going to do to
Alex” and stated she “constantly worries for Alex’[s] safety when
she is alone with mother.” J.G. additionally reported that “a
couple of years ago she used to get hit with a belt 2–3 times and a
fluffy sandal.”
Alex admitted she and Mother verbally argued but denied
Mother ever physically abused her. She also denied seeing
Mother physically abuse K.M. She did see Mother spank K.M. on
the bottom with an open hand two days ago because K.M. was
being disrespectful to Alex.
The next day, DCFS received a new referral claiming
Mother tried to kill herself after the CSW left the home. Alex
initially denied anything had happened, then minimized the
situation, stating that the children were in their room, that
Mother threatened to hurt herself but did not actually grab a
knife to do so as was reported, and that Mother only said she
wished she had a headband around her neck, but did not actually
try to choke herself. Mother denied the new allegations
completely, including what Alex told the CSW. J.G. reported
that, after Mother stated she was sending her to live with her
father, Mother said she was going to kill herself with a gun and
went downstairs. Alex and K.M. went after her, and J.G. heard
Alex ask, “why are you trying to kill yourself”? K.M. later told
J.G. that Mother “grabbed a knife and tried to hurt herself” and
also took “a pink head band scrunchie and put it around her neck
to choke herself.” K.M. claimed she did not remember what
happened the previous day.
A CSW spoke with Isabel, who primarily lived with her
father, Richard G. Isabel reported Mother “slaps [K.M.] on her
4
legs, face or arms.” She also stated Mother and Alex fought a lot,
with Mother hitting and throwing things at Alex.
DCFS obtained a removal order for the children and
removed them from Mother’s care the next day. Isabel stayed
with her father, and J.G. and K.M. were placed with a “maternal
grand aunt.”
B. DCFS Files a Petition
In May 2021, four days after removal, DCFS filed a petition
on behalf of all three children under section 300, subdivisions (a),
(b)(1), and (j). Counts a-1 and b-1 alleged that Mother engaged in
domestic violence with Alex. Counts a-2, and b-2, and j-1 alleged
that Mother physically abused K.M. Count b-3 alleged Mother
had a history of mental and emotional problems and threatened
to kill herself in front of the children.
At the detention hearing, Mother’s counsel indicated K.M.’s
father was not Samuel F., but Christian M., who was
incarcerated in “another state.” The court found Father to be
K.M.’s presumed father and ordered “a due diligence be initiated”
for him. The court found a prima facie case for detention and
detained Isabel from Mother and the other two children from
both their parents.
C. August 2021 Adjudication Hearing
In DCFS’s report for the August 2021 adjudication and
disposition hearing, it stated that a dependency investigator (DI)
“was informed” that Father “is currently incarcerated at
California City Correctional Facility” and “is eligible for parole in
2025.” In late July 2021, the court signed an order for Father to
appear at the adjudication hearing, which DCFS mailed to
Father at the correctional facility.
5
The DI spoke with Isabel, J.G., and K.M. about the
allegations. Isabel and J.G. largely confirmed their previous
statements. When asked about the domestic violence between
Mother and Alex and about Mother’s mental and emotional
problems, K.M. “appeared to be very uncomfortable” and said, “I
don’t want to talk about it.” K.M. also minimized Mother’s
physical abuse of her. When asked if anyone told her not to
speak with social workers or told her what to say, K.M. “took a
minute, then stated, ‘No.’ ” Mother denied all allegations,
claiming most of them were either misunderstandings, or were
lies told by Isabel and J.G. As to Father, Mother claimed he only
saw K.M. “a few times when she was about 6 months old” and
was otherwise never involved. Mother said K.M. believed Samuel
F. (J.G.’s father) was her father, “since he was around.”
At the adjudication hearing, the children’s counsel noted
Father “was found in custody and was not brought out.” After
sustaining the petition in its entirety, the court continued the
disposition hearing to October 2021 to permit Father to appear.
A day after the adjudication hearing, the DI received a
letter from Father, indicating he had received the petition and
other paperwork and filled it out to the best of his ability. He
also stated his parents would attend court hearings and asked
that K.M. not be put up for adoption. He indicated his sister
would try to get custody until he was able to get out of prison.
One week later, the court issued a “Statewide Removal
Order” for Father’s appearance at the October 2021 disposition
hearing. However, the “Statewide office” returned the order
stating: “Due to the CDCR inmate moratorium mandate set forth
by the Office of Undersheriff B. Corbett[,] we will not be picking
[up] any CDCR court order inmates. This mandate will continue
6
until November 2021 or until we are notified of the moratorium
order termination.”
In September 2021, J.G. and K.M. were placed with Isabel’s
father, Richard G.
D. Disposition Hearing
On the day of the October 2021 disposition hearing, an
attorney submitted a JV-140 form for Father, giving his mailing
address. The form expressly states: “TO THE PARENT OR
GUARDIAN OF THE ABOVE NAMED CHILD: [¶] YOU ARE
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOUR PERMANENT MAILING
ADDRESS TO THE COURT. [¶] The court, the clerk, and the
social services agency or probation department will send all
documents and notices to the mailing address provided, until and
unless you notify the court or the social worker or probation
officer on your case of your new mailing address.” [¶] Notice of
the new mailing address must be provided in writing.”
At the disposition hearing, Father was again not present,
but the court appointed as his counsel the attorney who
submitted the JV-140 form. As Father was non-offending, his
counsel informed the court that Father submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court.4 At counsel’s request, the disposition
hearing for K.M. was again continued, this time to December
2021.
At the December 2021 disposition hearing, Father was
again not present, but his attorney waived his appearance. As
for K.M., DCFS requested the court remove her from Mother,
grant Mother monitored visits, and provide reunification services
4 Counsel later represented to the court that she had been
able to speak with Father.
7
for Mother but bypass such services for Father under section
361.5, subdivision (e)(1), because he was not eligible for parole
until 2025.5 Father’s counsel stated she spoke “extensive[ly]”
with Father, and he was “in full support” of K.M. remaining with
Richard G. and her siblings and would “submit” on the issue of
reunification services. The court removed K.M. from both
parents, ordered reunification services for Mother, and bypassed
such services for Father, granting him monitored visits once he
was released from custody.
E. Six-Month Review Hearing
At the June 2022 six-month review hearing, Father was not
present, and his counsel again waived his attendance. Counsel
requested only that Father receive phone calls from and a
photograph of K.M. The court ordered a continuation of
reunification services for Mother and set the 12-month review
hearing for November 2022. The court stated it would not order
5 (§ 361.5, subd. (e) [“If the parent . . . is incarcerated, . . .
the court shall order reasonable services unless the court
determines, by clear and convincing evidence, those services
would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment, the
court shall consider the age of the child, the degree of parent-
child bonding, the length of the sentence, . . . the nature of the
crime . . . , the degree of detriment to the child if services are not
offered and, for children 10 years of age or older, the child’s
attitude toward the implementation of family reunification
services, the likelihood of the parent’s discharge from
incarceration . . . within the reunification time limitations
described in subdivision (a), and any other appropriate
factors. . . .”].)
8
any more phone calls than previously ordered but would order
that a picture of K.M. be sent to Father.
In October 2022, Father was released from prison and
visited K.M. K.M. reported the visit went well and that she
would like to continue having contact with Father. A CSW
informed Father that, because a case was still open with K.M.,
contact with her “would need to be assessed first.”
F. Twelve-Month Review Hearing
In the status report for the 12-month review hearing, DCFS
began listing Father’s address as being on “Elm Street” in Los
Angeles and sending notices there. The record does not disclose
how DCFS obtained this new address.
At the November 2022 twelve-month review hearing,
Father was again not present. His counsel informed the court
that she had told him she would call him but, because his
voicemail had not yet been set up, she would “proceed without
him.” Father’s counsel stated that, although Father had been
absent from K.M.’s life for nine and a half years, he requested the
court provide family reunification services for him, as he was
non-offending. K.M.’s counsel indicated K.M. wanted to stay with
Richard and did not want to reunify with Mother; she also asked
that Father be granted unmonitored visits. DCFS’s counsel
asked the court to continue reunification services for Mother and
grant monitored visits to Father “with a further assessment”
given his recent release from incarceration. The court ordered
continued reunification services for Mother and unmonitored
visits for Father, three hours a day, three days per week.
Because DCFS did not know prior to the hearing that Father
would be requesting reunification services, the court set a further
hearing in January 2023 to decide on that request.
9
In January 2023, DCFS submitted a last minute
information stating that K.M. reported she did not know Father
well and has never had a consistent relationship with him. She
continued to express that she wanted to stay with her sisters in
the care of Richard and wanted this to be her permanent
situation. She was “comfortable with having visits with her
father and building a relationship with him in the future.” Based
on this, DCFS opposed granting Father reunification services.
Father did not appear at the hearing on whether to grant
him reunification services. His counsel represented that she had
spoken to him several times and he wanted to be present, but he
was now not picking up his phone. Counsel stated she would
proceed without him. Counsel could not name what services she
wanted Father to receive other than visitation, but requested he
get as much visitation as possible with K.M., and for the court “to
go at least six months.” The court declined to order reunification
services for Father because “the first 12 months have already
lapsed” and also Father did not appear to be seeking any other
services besides visitation, which he had already been granted.
G. Eighteen-Month Review Hearing
In DCFS’s status report for the March 2023 eighteen-
month review hearing, K.M. informed the CSW that she had not
had an in-person visit with Father since she last spoke with the
CSW, but that Father would text and call her.6
Although notice of the 18-month review hearing was sent to
Father at his Elm Street address, he did not appear; his counsel
represented he was at work and waived his appearance. The
6 The record does not make clear what date this last visit
occurred, or when the CSW spoke with K.M.
10
court terminated Mother’s reunification services and set a
hearing under section 366.26 for July 2023.
In May 2023, the court received information that, without
permission of the court or DCFS, Richard had taken J.G. and
K.M. to Kansas City, and then Spain.7 The court ordered the
minors returned to Los Angeles. The children returned 12 days
later and were placed in the care of Richard G.’s parents.
Because of Richard’s actions, DCFS no longer considered him to
be a candidate to provide permanency for J.G. and K.M.
H. July 2023 Section 366.26 Hearing
In the June 2023 status report for the section 366.26
hearing, DCFS noted that Father had not contacted K.M. for
approximately four months and “has not been an involved parent
in child [K.M.]’s life.” When DCFS arrived at the Elm Street
address in April 2023 to personally serve him notice of the section
366.26 hearing, “Father appeared to be struggling with his
sobriety” and “acknowledged receiving ‘all these forms’ via the
mail.” He also reported: “I’m not in a good place right now” and
“I know my daughter is happy where she’s at.” He stated he
wanted to “waive” his parental rights.
7 DCFS had been informed the family traveled to Kansas
City because the mother of Richard’s wife had “fallen ill,” and
there was no one in Los Angeles to care for the children. Richard
mentioned “the girls were eager to continue traveling and wanted
to travel to Barcelona after they dealt with the family
emergency.” Despite DCFS informing Richard that any travel
needed to be court-approved, the family went to Barcelona.
Richard “reported that he had ran into some financial issues over
time and could no longer afford the rent at their home in Los
Angeles.”
11
In July 2023, at DCFS’s request, the court continued the
section 366.26 hearing to November 2023.
I. July 2023 Ex Parte Application
In late July 2023, Richard informed DCFS that J.G. and
K.M. “had shown up to his home in Barcelona Spain with their
oldest sibling Isabel G[.]” Richard claimed he had “nothing to do
with it” and surmised that “Isabel put it [presumably the plane
tickets] on her credit card.” When the CSW contacted Richard’s
parents, they reported J.G. and K.M. were visiting their maternal
aunt. The maternal aunt told the CSW the girls were supposed
to visit on Thursday, but she received a call from J.G. saying they
were not going to visit because they had returned to Spain.
Richard later informed DCFS the children were unwilling to
return to the United States, and he would not force them to do so.
In an ex parte application for the court to issue protective
custody warrants, DCFS stated that “when the children were
made aware that they were going to have to be placed in another
home [because their current caregivers only agreed to keep them
until August 1, 2023] and it could potentially be a foster home,
the children made the decision to run-away and go back to Spain.
Since removal from the care of Richard G[.] due to his move to
Spain, the children’s wishes continued to be that they wanted to
be placed back into his care and reside in Spain.” The court
issued protective custody orders for J.G. and K.M.
J. September 2023 Permanency Planning Review
Hearing
In a last minute information, DCFS informed the court it
had regularly checked in with the children via video calls, and
they seemed to be doing well.
12
No parties were present at the September 2023
Permanency Planning Review hearing. DCFS’s counsel informed
the court that DCFS was “going to make attempts to have
physical contact with the children” to “assess the situation
further to see what, if any, permanency can be had with the
children remaining where they are.” Father’s counsel made no
arguments or requests. The court ordered “a permanent plan
goal of some kind of legal guardianship,” set a progress review
hearing for November 2023, and set another permanency
planning review hearing for March 2024.
K. November 2023 Hearings
At the progress review hearing, DCFS asked the court to
“order a home study to be conducted” so DCFS could try to visit
the children. The court agreed. Three days later, the court
continued the section 366.26 hearing until the March 2024
permanency planning review hearing. At both hearings, Father’s
counsel made no arguments or requests.
L. March 2024 Permanency Planning and Section
366.26 Hearings
In the status report for the March 2024 hearings, DCFS
informed the court that the home study had not yet been
completed, but all information indicated the children were doing
well in Richard’s care. A DI visited the children in Barcelona in
December 2023 and agreed they were doing well. Both children
stated they wanted to remain in Spain under Richard’s care.
Richard stated he planned to provide permanency to J.G. and
K.M. either through legal guardianship or adoption.
No parties were present at the March 2024 hearings.
DCFS’s counsel asked the court to continue the hearings for 120
13
days to allow the completion of the home study, and to select
legal guardianship as “the current goal at this time.” Father’s
counsel again made no arguments or requests. The court
continued the section 366.26 hearing to July 2024 and the
permanency planning review hearing to September 2024 and
selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan.
M. The July 2024 Section 366.26 Hearing
In a last minute information, DCFS informed the court that
the company conducting the home study had e-mailed DCFS to
say the assessment team had finished their work but had not yet
written the report. The company added that “[i]n principle, their
assessment is positive and they validate the suitability of the
foster care.”
No parties were present at the July 2024 hearing. The
court ordered “a permanent plan of remain[ing] in foster care
with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, legal
guardianship or placement with a fit and willing relative.” It
then advanced and continued the permanency planning review
hearing to October 2024. Father’s counsel made no arguments or
requests.
N. The October 2024 Permanency Planning
Hearing
In a status report for the October 2024 hearing, DCFS
reported that K.M. “recently expressed that she would like to
return to the United States but wants to be placed back into her
mother’s care.” Specifically, K.M. said that “she wanted to move
back to attend her old school and things were getting hard
because she could not understand the language.” She expressed
a belief that Mother had changed. K.M. also said that Isabel was
14
returning to the United States and “could check in on her.”
DCFS stated that the now completed home study “references that
[K.M.] feels that she has interest that is [sic] more in common
with her sister Isabel than [J.G.]” DCFS opined that “Isabel
moving back to the United States might be an influence on
[K.M.]’s change of mind.” The home study reported that Richard
would “be an appropriate permanent plan for the children.”
Although notice of the hearing was sent to the Elm Street
address, Father was not present at the October 2024 hearing.
His counsel stated she had “no direction from [her] client” and
made no arguments or requests. K.M.’s counsel represented to
the court that she had spoken with K.M. the previous night, and
K.M. reported Richard had “kicked [her] out” of his home,
“blocked her on his phone,” and “will not make any sort of contact
with” her; K.M. was staying with Richard’s ex-wife, Paige (with
whom Richard also refused to speak), and was reportedly safe.
Richard’s refusal to communicate with K.M. or Paige were
causing K.M. problems in school because Paige lacked the
educational rights Richard had.
The court determined that “all of the R.P.P. plans are
possible options on the table for both kids” and set a permanency
planning review hearing for December 2024.
O. Mother Files a Section 388 Petition
In October 2024, Mother filed a request to have K.M.
released to her or, in the alternative, placed on an extended visit
with her to evaluate the appropriateness of releasing K.M. to her.
In a last minute information, DCFS informed the court
that, according to Paige (Richard’s ex-wife), K.M. had been
staying with her since July 2024 with no financial support from
Richard. In October 2024, a CSW brought K.M. back to the
15
United States and placed her in foster care. In November 2024,
the court recalled the protective custody order for K.M.
In another last minute information, DCFS informed the
court that, in response to Mother’s request, it recommended the
court reinstate her reunification services.
Although notice of Mother’s petition was sent to Father at
the Elm Street address, Father did not appear at the December
2024 hearing. Father’s counsel again reported she had “no
direction from [her] client.” The court ordered Mother to be given
six additional months of reunification services and granted her
unmonitored visits in a neutral location. The court also ordered
Mother to participate in individual therapy as well as conjoint
therapy with K.M. The court set a progress hearing for March
2025 and a permanency planning review hearing for June 2025.8
P. March 2025 Progress Review Hearing
Although notice of the progress review hearing was sent to
Father at the Elm Street address, Father did not appear at the
March 2025 hearing. Father’s counsel once again represented
she had “[n]o direction” from him. The court ordered all previous
orders would remain in full force and effect. The court also
ordered DCFS to assess whether overnight visits with Mother
would be appropriate.
8 In a status report for the December 2024 permanency
planning review hearing, DCFS reported the visits between
Mother and K.M. were infrequent but going well. The court later
took this hearing off calendar.
16
Q. April 2025 Hearing
In April 2025, DCFS asked the court to issue a protective
custody order when it discovered K.M. had been staying with
Mother. Mother’s counsel and K.M.’s counsel asked the court to
order that K.M. be permitted a “29-day visit” with Mother.
Father’s counsel yet again stated she had “[n]o direction” from
him. Instead of issuing a protective custody order, the court
ordered that K.M. be permitted a 29-day visit with Mother on the
condition that Mother and K.M. participate in conjoint
counseling, that Mother participate in individual counseling, and
that DCFS make frequent, unannounced visits. The court set a
review hearing in May 2025.
R. May 2025 Review Hearing
In a last minute information, DCFS informed the court
Mother had begun therapy in late April 2025. Mother also stated
she was participating in conjoint therapy with K.M. but had not
provided DCFS with the therapist’s information. DCFS visited
Mother’s home and found no issues.
At the May 2025 hearing, counsel for DCFS, Mother, and
K.M. all asked the court to release K.M. to Mother. Father’s
counsel repeated she had no direction from Father but was “sure
he would be happy that the child is going back to the mother.”
She also requested DCFS “try to contact the father so they can
create a written visitation schedule.” The court ordered K.M. to
be placed with Mother, on the condition that Mother continue
with individual and conjoint counseling and participate in family
preservation services. The court asked DCFS to provide it with a
written visitation schedule for Father. The court set a hearing
under section 364 for November 2025. The court also advanced
and vacated the June 2025 permanency planning review hearing.
17
S. November 2025 Section 364 Hearing
In the status report for the section 364 hearing, DCFS
indicated it had mailed out a contact letter to Father’s last known
address “in efforts to make contact with him.” In late June 2025,
K.M. reported she had not heard from Father “in a long time” and
“was not interested in having any contact or visits with her
father.”
Although notice of the section 364 hearing was mailed to
Father at the Elm Street address in early November 2025, 18
days before the hearing, he did not appear. Father’s counsel
reported she lacked direction from him and requested the court
grant him monitored visits. Mother’s counsel informed the court
that Father was “in custody” and would not be eligible for parole
until December 2026. Thus, she requested that Mother be
granted sole legal and physical custody of K.M., with Father
having one monitored visit per year, on Father’s Day. Father’s
counsel stated she did not know Father was incarcerated, and if
Mother’s counsel knew this, then DCFS should notify Father at
his place of incarceration, and the court should continue the
hearing for lack of proper notice. Counsel also objected to the
amount of visitation Mother was requesting the court grant
Father.
The court found “notice of the proceeding has been given as
required by law.” The court granted Mother sole legal and
physical custody, granted Father five hours of monitored visits a
month, and terminated jurisdiction. The court stayed its order
pending receipt of a Juvenile Custody Order reflecting its ruling.
The court received this order in December 2025 and lifted the
stay, terminating jurisdiction. Father timely appealed.
18
DISCUSSION
Section 292 required DCFS to give Father notice of the
section 364 hearing “by personal service, by first-class mail, or by
certified mail with return receipt requested, addressed to the last
known address of the person to be noticed.” (§ 292, subd. (e).) No
party disputes that DCFS complied with section 292.
Father nevertheless argues his due process rights were
violated because DCFS “failed to provide notices that was [sic]
‘reasonably calculated’ to provide notice to Father” and failed to
“tak[e] necessary and obvious steps to locate Father.” We
“consider de novo whether inadequate notice violated father’s due
process rights.” (In re Mia M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 792, 806.)
“While there can be no dispute that due process prohibits
courts from interfering with parental rights without adequate
notice, dependency procedures and statutory notice requirements
are based on the principle that parents can be expected to exert
some effort to keep apprised of their children and their welfare.”
(In re Jennifer O. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 539, 549.)
In Jennifer O., DCFS properly served notice of a section
300 petition on a father living in Mexico. (In re Jennifer O.,
supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 543–544.) It subsequently mailed
notice of the six-month review hearing to the father’s last known
address by first-class mail. (Id. at p. 545.) On appeal, the father
argued his due process rights had been violated because the
Hague Service Convention required DCFS to serve the notice via
international registered mail, with return receipt requested. (Id.
at p. 546.) Our colleagues in Division Four disagreed, holding
that because the father “was aware of the pendency of juvenile
court proceedings involving his three children, and made a
general appearance,” DCFS was permitted to serve “subsequent
19
notice of the six-month review hearing by mail.” (Id. at p. 548.)
The court faulted the father, in part, for “fail[ing] to keep DCFS
informed of his whereabouts,” concluded “[s]ervice of notice on
appellant of the six-month review hearing by first-class mail fully
complied with California law,” and found “no violation of
appellant’s due process rights or any rights under the Hague
Service Convention.” (Id. at pp. 549–550.)9
Here, Father voluntarily submitted to the juvenile court’s
jurisdiction. After Father was initially released from prison,
DCFS began sending him notices at an address on Elm Street.
When DCFS personally met him at the Elm Street address to
give him the notice of the initial section 366.26 hearing, Father
“acknowledged receiving ‘all these forms’ via the mail” that had
been sent to that address. Father does not contend he had given
DCFS a more recent address when it sent notice of the section
364 hearing to the Elm Street address. Thus, like the Jennifer O.
court, we conclude Father’s due process rights were not
violated.10
9 Father contends he “was not similarly situated to the
father in the Jennifer O. case . . . because Jennifer O. didn’t
involve the central issue of notice at a stale address.” Father is
incorrect. As quoted above, the appellate court faulted the
Jennifer O. father for failing to keep DCFS informed of his
whereabouts. Additionally, the court took judicial notice of
“evidence that letters sent to appellant in 2009 at the address he
provided the caseworker have been returned by the postal
service.” (In re Jennifer O., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 550, fn.
12.) Notice of the six-month review hearing was sent in 2009.
(Id. at p. 545.)
10 The three cases on which Father relies are inapposite
because they address situations in which the parents never made
(Fn. is continued on the next page.)
20
DISPOSITION
The court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
M. KIM, J.
We concur:
BENDIX, Acting P. J.
WEINGART, J.
a general appearance or submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, and
DCFS did not properly notify them that dependency proceedings
were occurring. (In re J.R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 569, 589
[parent’s due process rights violated when DCFS failed to
exercise reasonable diligence in searching for parent to give
proper notice that dependency proceedings were occurring]; In re
D.R. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 583, 590–591 [same]; In re Mia M.,
supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at pp. 808–810 [same].)
21