L.G. v. Superior Court
L.G. (mother) and F.R. (father) are the parents of four-year-old C.R., three-year-old A.R. and two-year-old V.R.[1] They were also the parents of a daughter, G.R., until she was freed for adoption in May 2010 after they failed to reunify with her.
In May 2012, the juvenile court denied mother and father reunification services as to C.R., A.R. and V.R. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11)[2] and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. Mother and father each filed a writ petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.450 (rule) in propria persona, challenging the juvenile court’s ruling without asserting a basis for error in compliance with the rule. Subsequently, mother’s trial counsel filed a writ petition challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s denial of services order.
Having reviewed the appellate record and mother’s petition, we find error in the juvenile court’s denial order and grant her writ relief. Since father did not raise error in his writ petition or join in mother’s argument, we would ordinarily dismiss his petition as facially inadequate. However, the denial of services order was error as to both parents. Further, real party in interest briefed the issue mother raised in its opposition to father’s petition. Consequently, there is no prejudice to real party in this court granting relief as to father as well.
In our view, the criticality of reunification services in dependency proceedings dictates that we address the propriety of the juvenile court’s denial of reunification services as to father even though he did not properly raise it in his writ petition. Therefore, in this rare exercise of our discretionary authority to review an issue not raised, we consolidate mother and father’s cases on our own motion and address whether the juvenile court erred in denying mother and father reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). We conclude that it erred and grant extraordinary writ relief.
Comments on L.G. v. Superior Court