Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Marcus M.

Good Law
2008 Cal. LEXIS 476·42 Cal. 4th 901·70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 358·174 P.3d 180
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 17, 2008No. S150316California6,838 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kennard, J.

In a dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), the juvenile court may terminate a parent’s interest in a child’s companionship, care, and custody after the child has been removed from the parent’s home, efforts to reunify the family have failed, and adoption has been identified as the permanent placement goal. (Id., § 366.26, subd. (b)(1); see In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52-53 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 432 , 71 P.3d 787 ].) Because a basic civil right of the parent is thus at stake (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 306 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 544 , 851 P.2d 826 ]), significant due process safeguards have been built into the dependency scheme (id. at p. 307), including a right to court-appointed counsel for a parent who cannot afford to retain counsel (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317).

In a dependency case, a parent who is mentally incompetent must appear through a guardian ad litem, to whom the parent yields management and control of the litigation. (In re Daniel S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 903, 912 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 646 ]; In re Sara D. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 661, 665-667 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 909 ].) Before appointing a guardian ad litem for a parent in a dependency…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.