J.D.

Stanislaus County Community Services Agency v. J.D.

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 646·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1734·2006 Daily Journal DAR 14601·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10212
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 2006No. F050003California2,844 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Cornell, J.

*648 Opinion

J.D. is the father of D.D. He was 17 years old when a juvenile dependency petition was filed on behalf of D.D., his two-month-old child. The juvenile court did not appoint a guardian ad litem or an attorney for J.D. until the six-month review hearing. The juvenile court terminated J.D.’s reunification services 40 days later.

J.D. contends the juvenile court erred when it failed to appoint either a guardian ad litem or an attorney for him at the beginning of the proceedings. We agree and will reverse because J.D. is a presumed father who was a minor and, as such, he was entitled to more protection than he received in the juvenile court.

We publish this decision because we hold that a guardian ad litem must be appointed for a presumed father who is a minor, even though he personally does not appear.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On June 24, 2005, officers executed a search warrant at the home of the maternal grandparents, who were not present, and found rock cocaine, marijuana, pipes, and scales. J.D. (the child’s father), S.W. (the child’s mother), and D.D. were present at the time. The officers arrested S.W. after finding methamphetamine in her purse. The…

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.