In re Angela C

In In re Angela C. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 389, the court confronted the issue whether the failure to provide notice to a parent of a continued section 366.26 hearing mandates per se reversal. The court noted that when "confronted with constitutional error in dependency matters, other appellate courts have looked to the standards applied in criminal appeals." (Id. at p. 394.) It held, "constitutional error as a general rule does not automatically require reversal. In determining the effect of 'most constitutional errors,' appellate courts can properly apply a Chapman harmless error analysis. (Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 306.) . . . An error in the trial process itself does not require automatic reversal because a court may quantitatively assess such an error in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at pp. 307-308.) In applying harmless error analysis to these many different constitutional violations, Fulminante explained the harmless error doctrine is 'essential to preserve the "principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error."' (Id. at p. 308.)" (Angela C., at p. 394.) On the other hand, "structural" constitutional error affects "'the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself' and defies analysis by a harmless error standard. (Arizona v. Fulminante, supra, 499 U.S. at pp. 309-310.) A structural error requires reversal without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances. (Id. at p. 310.)" (Angela C., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 394.) In Angela C. appellant had failed to appear for the originally scheduled section 366.26 hearing and was not given notice of the continued hearing. Concluding that the lack of notice was in the nature of a trial error, the court noted that appellant had notice of the dependency proceedings from the outset as well as an opportunity to be heard. She had received proper notice of the originally scheduled hearing and her failure to appear at that hearing merely affected the manner in which the juvenile court conducted the hearing. Since the court could have conducted an uncontested hearing on the original hearing date, the failure to notify appellant of the continued hearing date was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Angela C., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 395.) The Court held that failure to give notice of a continuance of a permanency planning was "trial error" subject to harmless error review, and not "structural error" reversible per se, where the appellant had notice of the proceedings from the outset and received proper notice of the originally scheduled hearing but failed to appear. The court reasoned that in light of the appellant's participation in earlier proceedings and her election not to attend the originally scheduled hearing, it was possible to make a qualitative assessment of the error's effect on the proceeding "in the context of other evidence presented" so as to rationally determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at p. 395.) The court then found the error harmless because the primary issue at the hearing was the child's adoptability and there was no apparent basis for a negative finding. (Id. at p. 396.)