Background
In 2021, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services filed a section 300 petition on behalf of K.M. and her two half-siblings, alleging their mother physically abused the children, engaged in domestic violence, and threatened suicide in front of them. The petition contained no allegations against K.M.'s father, Christian M., who was incarcerated in another state. The juvenile court found him K.M.'s presumed father, appointed counsel for him, and he submitted to the court's jurisdiction as a non-offending parent. The court removed K.M. from both parents, ordered reunification services for Mother, and bypassed services for Father because he was not eligible for parole until 2025.
Father was released from prison in October 2022, after which DCFS began sending notices to his Elm Street address in Los Angeles. When DCFS personally served him there in April 2023 with notice of a section 366.26 hearing, he acknowledged receiving 'all these forms' by mail. Over subsequent hearings Father's participation varied; the court declined his request for reunification services in January 2023 because the first 12 months had already lapsed. K.M.'s caretaker took the children to Spain without court permission in 2023, and a CSW brought K.M. back to the United States in October 2024 and placed her in foster care.
In April 2025 the court ordered a 29-day visit with Mother, and in May 2025 it placed K.M. with Mother. The court then set a November 2025 section 364 hearing to decide whether to terminate jurisdiction. DCFS mailed notice to Father's Elm Street address 18 days before the hearing. At the hearing, Mother's counsel revealed that Father was in custody and would not be eligible for parole until December 2026, which Father's own counsel said she had not known. Father's counsel requested a continuance so DCFS could notify him at his place of incarceration, but the court found notice had been given as required by law, awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody, granted Father five hours of monitored visits per month, and terminated jurisdiction after receiving a juvenile custody order. Father timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Section 292, subdivision (e) required DCFS to give notice of the section 364 hearing by personal service, first-class mail, or certified mail addressed to the last known address of the person to be noticed, and no party disputed that DCFS complied with that statute. The court reviewed de novo whether mailing notice to the Elm Street address nonetheless violated Father's due process rights.
Relying on In re Jennifer O. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 539, the court explained that dependency notice requirements rest on the principle that parents can be expected to exert some effort to keep apprised of their children and their welfare. In Jennifer O., a father who was aware of the dependency proceedings and had made a general appearance could be served with later hearing notices by first-class mail, and the court faulted him for failing to keep DCFS informed of his whereabouts. Here, Father voluntarily submitted to the juvenile court's jurisdiction, DCFS began sending notices to the Elm Street address after his release from prison, and when DCFS personally met him there in April 2023 he acknowledged receiving all the mailed forms. Father did not contend he had given DCFS a more recent address before the section 364 notice was mailed.
The court distinguished the cases Father cited because they involved parents who never made a general appearance and were never properly notified that dependency proceedings existed. Because Father's due process rights were not violated, the court did not consider whether any purported error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and it affirmed the orders.
Key Takeaways
- Statutory compliance with section 292's mailing requirement satisfies due process for a parent who has appeared and submitted to the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
- Parents in dependency cases bear responsibility to keep the agency and the court informed of their whereabouts, including any reincarceration.
- Due process notice violations are typically found where parents never made a general appearance or were never told that proceedings existed, a fact pattern this court treated as distinguishable.
- Because the court found no due process violation, it did not decide whether the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt harmless-error standard would apply to inadequate notice at a section 364 hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision extends In re Jennifer O. to the section 364 jurisdiction-termination context, confirming that first-class mail to a parent's last known address remains constitutionally sufficient when the parent has appeared in the case and failed to update the agency about a new incarceration that was unknown when the notice was mailed.
The opinion leaves open the prejudice standard for genuinely inadequate notice at a section 364 hearing. For practitioners, it underscores the importance of JV-140 address updates and of counsel confirming a client's custodial status before jurisdiction-terminating hearings, because a continuance request based on stale notice is unlikely to succeed on appeal where the parent contributed to the gap.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket