Modification: In re Christopher L.

In re CHRISTOPHER L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. B305225

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP02800)

Second Appellate District

Division One

Filed November 12, 2020

THE COURT:

The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on November 2, 2020 is modified as follows:

1. On page 11, in the first paragraph of the Discussion, the word "certain" is inserted between the words "to participate in" and "dependency proceedings." That sentence now reads:

Father also argues that when the juvenile court conducted the jurisdiction/disposition hearing without Father or Father's counsel present, it violated Penal Code section 2625, which guarantees incarcerated parents the opportunity to participate in certain dependency proceedings.

2. On page 12, the following is deleted: "(See In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588, 625 (Jesusa V.) [applying Watson harmless error analysis to violation of Penal Code section 2625 that denied the father the ability to personally participate in dependency hearing]; In re Andrew M. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 859, 864, 867 (Andrew M.) [failure to appoint counsel for the presumed father reviewed for harmless error under Watson].)"

3. In the first full paragraph on page 13, the word "only" is deleted from the third sentence. That sentence now reads:

Presumed fathers are entitled to appointed counsel and reunification services.

4. In the first full paragraph on page 13, "(In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 451; see also Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 596 [distinguishing the greater rights that presumed fathers have as opposed to biological fathers].)" is deleted and replaced with the following:

(In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 451 ["only a presumed, not a mere biological, father is a 'parent' entitled to receive reunification services"]; In re Kobe A. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1120 [" '[p]resumed father status entitles the father to appointed counsel, custody (absent a finding of detriment), and a reunification plan' "]; see also Francisco G. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 586, 596 [distinguishing the greater rights that presumed fathers have as opposed to biological fathers].)

5. In the first sentence on page 14, the word "certain" is inserted between the words "participate in" and "dependency proceedings." That sentence now reads:

Penal Code section 2625, subdivision (d) requires that a prisoner be permitted to participate in certain dependency proceedings.

6. On page 14, in the second paragraph, the first short form case citation, "Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 621-622;" is replaced with the long form of that citation: In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588, 621-622 (Jesusa V.);

7. On page 14, within the parenthetical in the second paragraph, the words "resulting in the father participating in hearing only through counsel" are inserted between the phrases "subdivision (d)" and "was not jurisdictional." That parenthetical (and its associated citation) now read:

id. at p. 625 [holding violation of Penal Code section 2625, subdivision (d) resulting in the father participating in hearing only through counsel was not jurisdictional, because "we have regularly applied a harmless‑error analysis when a defendant has been involuntarily absent from a criminal trial . . . [and] do not believe the Legislature intended a different result . . . when a prisoner is involuntarily absent from a dependency proceeding"].)

8. The "Andrew M." citation at the bottom of page 15 is revised as follows: (In re Andrew M. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 849, 867 (Andrew M.).)

9. On page 18, in the first sentence, the words "causing an incarcerated parent to appear only through counsel" are inserted between the words "notice errors" and "are reviewed." That sentence now reads:

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that Penal Code section 2625 notice errors causing an incarcerated parent to appear only through counsel are reviewed under a harmless error analysis in dependency proceedings (see Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 625), and at least one Court of Appeal has concluded that an incorrect ruling as to a father's parental status resulting in the father being denied appointed counsel was reviewable for harmless error.

These modifications do not constitute a change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing filed on November 4, 2020 is denied.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

CHANEY, J.

BENDIX, J.