Riverside County Department of Public Social Services v. Randall S.

I generally concur in the judgment. In most respects, the Court of Appeal did not commit error in affirming the juvenile court’s order terminating its dependency jurisdiction over the minor, Chantal S., with an order allowing visitation by her father, Randall S., on conditions including commencement of psychotherapy and satisfactory progress therein.

I dissent, however, as to a single matter.

The Court of Appeal committed reversible error in affirming the juvenile court’s visitation order insofar as it effectively, and unlawfully, delegates judicial authority to individuals outside the government.

A glance at the visitation order, which is set out in the margin, 1 reveals a grant of substantially unfettered discretion to private psychotherapists. Who will determine whether Randall’s not-yet-retained psychotherapist—whoever he may be—is a “therapist qualified to work with issues such as” his? Indeed, who will determine what “issues such as his” are? The answers are not clear. Presumably, however, the not-yet-retained psychotherapist will himself decide. Next, who will determine whether Randall has “attend[ed] therapy regularly and ma[d]e satisfactory progress for a time” with…

May a juvenile court, when terminating its dependency jurisdiction, issue an order conditioning visitation on a parent’s participation in a counseling program? If so, is the juvenile court bound by the requirements of Family Code section 3190, which governs counseling orders issued by a family court? The Court of Appeal answered these questions “yes” and “no” respectively, thereby creating a conflict with In re Katherine M. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 91 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 ] (Katherine M.). We granted review to resolve the conflict, and affirm.

I. The Distinction Between Juvenile and Family Courts

At the outset it is helpful to clarify the distinction between a “juvenile court,” and its orders, and a “family court,” and its orders. A “juvenile court” is a superior court exercising limited jurisdiction arising under juvenile law. (In re Lisa R. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 636, 643 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 475 , 532 P.2d 123 , 90 A.L.R.3d 1017 ].) Dependency proceedings in the juvenile court are special proceedings with their own set of rules, governed, in general, by the Welfare and Institutions Code.

*201 By contrast, “family court” refers to the activities of one or more superior court…