L.A. Cty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Patricia L.

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 care. The DCFS appeals.

While we appreciate the juvenile court’s frustration with the repeated failure of the DCFS to follow the statutory requirement…