In re Hunter V. et al.

In re Hunter V. · California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven · July 30, 2025 · No. B339028

Summary

The California Court of Appeal reversed the jurisdiction finding and disposition order as to an incarcerated father in a dependency proceeding. The court held that the juvenile court violated the father's due process right to notice by amending the petition to allege a different factual and legal theory, and violated his statutory right to be present at the jurisdiction hearing without a valid waiver or required affidavit. The court found the notice error prejudicial and remanded for new hearings with the father's presence unless the statutory requirements for proceeding in his absence are met.

Holdings

  1. The appeal was not moot because reversal could provide Father effective relief by requiring a new jurisdiction hearing at which he could defend against the allegation sustained against him.
  2. The amendment violated Father's due process rights because it asserted a different set of facts and a different legal theory from the original petition without giving Father notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  3. The juvenile court violated Father's statutory right to be present by adjudicating the dependency petition without Father or his attorney present and without a signed waiver or qualifying affidavit.
  4. The notice error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and required reversal of the jurisdiction finding and disposition order as to Father.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal was moot because Father did not challenge the jurisdiction findings concerning Mother.
  2. Whether the juvenile court violated Father's due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard by amending the dependency petition to assert a materially different factual and legal theory.
  3. Whether the juvenile court violated Father's statutory right to be present at the jurisdiction hearing under Penal Code section 2625, subdivision (d), by proceeding without Father, a valid waiver or required affidavit, and Father's counsel.
  4. Whether the notice error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (15)

  • In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 277, 283(followed)
  • In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 688-689(followed)
  • In re I.S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 918, 921, 926-927, 929(followed)
  • In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1041-1042(followed)
  • In re Andrew L. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 683, 689(followed)
  • In re G.B. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 475, 487(followed)
  • In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588, 622, 624-625(followed)
  • D.E. v. Superior Court (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 502, 513(followed)
  • In re Andrew M. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 803, 810, fn. 4(followed)
  • In re Christopher L. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1063, 1076(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…