In Re Christiano S.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1426 OPINION In this case, the legislative policies manifest in the dependency statutory scheme, i.e., the prompt resolution of custody status ( In re John F. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1365 , 1377 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 225 ]) and the placement of dependent minors in a permanent and secure home ( In re Teneka W. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 721 , 728 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 ]) are in conflict with the constitutionally protected right of a parent (whose parental rights may be terminated) to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard ( In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679 , 688-689 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 ]). After determining that the conflict arose because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) failed to give the statutorily prescribed — and court-ordered — notification to the fathers, the juvenile court in effect punished the DCFS by refusing to continue the Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.26 hearing to consider the DCFS recommendation of adoption. The court instead ordered the children into long-term foster…