Opinion
C084018
05-16-2018
In re J.H. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.H., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. J07120, STK-JV-DP-2015-0000047)
Father M.H. appeals from the juvenile court's exit order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.) He argues the juvenile court in San Joaquin County (juvenile court) erred by sending the dependency file to the family law court in Butte County (family court) absent proper reason to do so. We agree. We reverse that portion of the exit order sending the file to Butte County and direct the juvenile court to recover the dependency file from the family court in Butte County.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
BACKGROUND
A detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary to the disposition of this appeal.
It suffices to say that father's family had an extensive history in the family court before its involvement in dependency court. In December 2014, the family court granted father sole legal and physical custody of his minor children and they moved from their mother's home in Chico to father's home in Stockton. On February 20, 2015, the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) instituted a juvenile dependency proceeding by filing a section 300 petition alleging the minors were suffering serious emotional damage as a result of father's conduct. (§ 300, subds. (b) & (c).) The juvenile court took jurisdiction, declared the minors dependents, and ordered family reunification services.
On January 13, 2017, the juvenile court ordered the minors placed with mother (in Butte County) and terminated dependency jurisdiction. Father's counsel represented at the final hearing that father did not intend to pursue custody in family court "any time soon." Nonetheless, the Agency suggested it would be appropriate to seal and send the dependency file to the family court (in Butte County) so the family court could, if "it is brought up . . . review what occurred here." Over father's objection, the juvenile court ordered the dependency file copied, sealed, and sent to the family court, stating the record was "not going to be unsealed and read unless a court orders that." Father timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the juvenile court erred when it ordered the dependency file copied, sealed, and sent to Butte County Superior Court. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we agree.
"It is the express intent of the Legislature that 'juvenile court records, in general, should be confidential.' (§ 827, subd. (b)(1).) This reflects a long recognized public policy of protecting the confidentiality of juvenile proceedings and records. [Citations.] Access to confidential juvenile records is governed by section 827. Section 827, subdivision (a) lists categories of people who have the right to inspect juvenile records without court order, including the child and his or her parents, as well as certain other designated persons who have a direct interest in matters related to the child. (§ 827, subd. (a)(1)(A)-(N).)" (In re Gina S. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1081.) Other listed individuals include a "judge, commissioner, or other hearing officer assigned to a family law case with issues concerning custody or visitation, or both, involving the minor, and the following persons, if actively participating in the family law case: a family court mediator assigned to a case involving the minor . . . , a court-appointed evaluator or a person conducting a court-connected child custody evaluation, investigation, or assessment . . . , and counsel appointed for the minor in the family law case pursuant to Section 3150 of the Family Code." (§ 827, subd. (a)(1)(L).) Section 827, subdivision (a)(1)(Q) also provides access to "[a]ny other person who may be designated by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon filing a petition." None of the enumerated categories apply in this case.
The Agency argues that the inclusion of "court personnel" in section 827, subdivision (a)(1)(A), provides authority for the challenged order. We disagree that the statute can be reasonably construed to give authority to any personnel of any court to access the juvenile court file at will. If such were the case, there would be no need to specifically delineate, as the Legislature did in subdivision (a)(1)(L), that a "judge, commissioner, or other hearing officer assigned to a family law case with issues concerning custody or visitation" may have access to the file. (§ 827, subd. (a)(1)(L), italics added.) Nor would there be any need to specifically delineate, as does subdivision (a)(1)(E), judges who were "actively participating" in criminal or juvenile proceedings involving the minor. (§ 827, subd. (a)(1)(E).) "Where reasonably possible, we avoid statutory constructions that render particular provisions superfluous or unnecessary." (Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 459.)
Here, the juvenile court did not order the dependency file be disclosed to a judge assigned to a family law matter with issues concerning custody or visitation--no such matter existed. Indeed, father represented that he was not planning on challenging custody any time soon. Nor did the juvenile court direct its exit order be transmitted to the family court clerk for the purposes of opening such a family law file. (See § 362.4.) There was no pending family law case and thus no judicial officer assigned to a family law case with issues concerning custody or visitation who would qualify to access the dependency file under section 827.
While we recognize that the juvenile court has the discretion to permit disclosure to "[a]ny other person who may be designated by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon filing a petition" (§ 827, subd. (a)(1)(Q)), no petition seeking disclosure was filed here. The juvenile court merely ordered the dependency file sent to family court for speculative future use. This is not appropriate under section 827.
Our conclusion is not altered by the fact that the juvenile court ordered the file to be transmitted sealed. The juvenile court has exclusive authority to determine the extent to which confidential juvenile records may be released. (In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 230, 232-233; see also T.N.G. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 767, 778.) The juvenile court cannot delegate this responsibility to another court, as it alone has " 'the sensitivity and expertise' " to make this determination. (In re Keisha T., at p. 232.) The file should be recovered and retained by the juvenile court unless and until a valid reason to disclose the records as permitted by the statute is presented to the juvenile court.
DISPOSITION
The exit order providing that the dependency file be sent to Butte County is stricken from the juvenile court's exit orders dated January 13, 2017. As modified, the exit orders are affirmed. The San Joaquin County Juvenile Court is directed to secure the return of its dependency file.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Hull, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Renner, J.