Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children v. Maria O. (In re Harley C.)

*498 In a juvenile dependency matter set for a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court refused to permit mother Maria O. to testify or to call witnesses because her counsel had not filed a joint trial statement as required by a local rule. We conclude *786 that the local rule is invalid and reverse the dispositional orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At the July 19, 2018, jurisdictional hearing on a juvenile dependency petition with respect to Mother's children, Harley C., and S.C., Mother waived her right to a trial and submitted on the reports. The juvenile court found that the children came within the court's jurisdiction pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (j) [abuse of sibling].

Mother requested a contested dispositional hearing. Mother sought placement of the children with her, 1 while the Department of Children and Family Services recommended that jurisdiction be terminated with a family law order granting the children's father sole physical custody and joint legal custody, with monitored visitation for Mother. Minors' counsel recommended that the case remain open and that Mother be offered…

I agree with the majority that the juvenile court erred by barring Maria from testifying and calling her daughter as a witness because Maria's attorney did not comply with a requirement that was not even in effect when the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed this action and of which the court gave the parties no prior notice of the consequences for noncompliance. The court's ruling deprived Maria of notice and an opportunity to be heard, cornerstones of our system of justice. (See Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055 , 1108, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 , 95 P.3d 459 ["notice and an opportunity to be heard" are "the most rudimentary of due process procedures"].) The ruling was also disproportionately harsh, especially given that Maria sought to testify and have her daughter testify only because of a significant, last minute change of position by minors' counsel. Therefore, I wholeheartedly join Part III of the discussion section of the majority opinion.

I also agree courts and courthouses cannot adopt and implement local rules without complying with the legislatively prescribed procedures for adopting local rules. And I agree…