In re R.C.
Filed 10/22/08 In re R.C. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re R.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BIANCA F., Defendant and Appellant. | E044501 (Super.Ct.No. INJJM00013) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.
Leonard J. Cravens for Defendant and Appellant.
Joe S. Rank, County Counsel, and Sophia H. Choi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
Mother Bianca F. (mother) appeals the denial of two Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 827 petitions for the disclosure of juvenile court records. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother has a pending family law case. She sought the records of the Child Protective Services (CPS) of an alleged molestation of her child, R.C. (the child) by two young boys with whom the child lived. A CPS worker investigated the incident and wrote a report in which she concluded the allegations were unfounded. On August 17, 2007, mother filed a section 827 petition for disclosure of juvenile court records, stating she needed the CPS workers report in order to rebut the accusations that the molestation occurred. Mother claimed the reports negative finding would have a huge bearing on which parent [would] get custody of the minor. The petition stated there was no section 300 petition filed in this case.
The juvenile court held a hearing on the section 827 petition on September 17, 2007. Counsel for the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (the department) asserted there was no dependency petition filed, so there was nothing to release. The court noted that mothers petition also stated no petition was filed. The court then denied mothers petition, stating that it had no jurisdiction over the departments reports which were not filed in court.
Mother filed another section 827 petition on October 1, 2007, and requested the same CPS report. The court summarily denied the petition.
ANALYSIS
The Juvenile Court Properly Denied the Section 827 Petitions
Mother contends the juvenile court should have granted the petitions, since it had jurisdiction to order the records to be disclosed. We disagree.
Section 827 governs the granting of access to confidential juvenile records by individuals and the public. (In re Elijah S. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1541 (Elijah S.).) Section 827, subdivision (e) provides: For purposes of this section, a juvenile case file means a petition filed in any juvenile court proceeding, reports of the probation officer, and all other documents filed in that case or made available to the probation officer in making his or her report, or to the judge, referee, or other hearing officer, and thereafter retained by the probation officer, judge, referee, or other hearing officer. (Italics added.)
The juvenile court in the instant case had no authority under section 827 to order the disclosure of the CPS workers report, since there was no dependency case regarding the child. The CPS workers report that mother sought was never filed with the court and thus was not a part of any juvenile case file within the meaning of section 827, subdivision (e). Therefore, the court properly denied mothers petitions.
Mother relies on Elijah S. to support her position that the juvenile court has jurisdiction to order juvenile case records to be disclosed whether or not a juvenile case has been filed. However, Elijah S. is inapposite, since the issue in that case was whether section 827 permitted the disclosure of juvenile records in cases involving deceased children where no formal jurisdictional petition was filed in juvenile court. (Elijah S., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1538, 1546.) The petitions for disclosure in that case were filed under section 827, subdivision (a)(2), which provides that juvenile case files, except those relating to matters within the jurisdiction of the court pursuant to Section 601 or 602, which pertain to a deceased child who was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300, shall be released to the public pursuant to an order by the juvenile court after a petition has been filed and interested parties have been afforded an opportunity to file an objection. ( 827, subd. (a)(2); see Elijah S., supra, at p. 1538.)
The instant case does not invoke the applicability of section 827, subdivision (a)(2), since it does not involve a deceased child, or a child who was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300. Section 300 broadly provides that any child who either has suffered or will likely suffer serious neglect or abuse, is within the courts jurisdiction. ( 300; Elijah S., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1543-1544.) Since the CPS worker here concluded that the allegations of molestation were unfounded, there was no evidence the child was within the juvenile courts jurisdiction.
In sum, the juvenile court properly denied mothers petitions, since it had no authority under section 827 to order the disclosure of the CPS workers report.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P.J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
