Allen M. v. Superior Court

In Allen M. v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1069 the agency sought to dismiss its first petition that alleged sexual abuse by the father ( 300, subd. (d)) because the parents agreed to admit to a second petition alleging violent confrontations in the home ( 300, subd. (b)). ( Allen M., supra, 6 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1071-1072.) Minor's counsel objected to dismissal and the court determined minor's counsel had the "obligation to proceed" on the sexual abuse petition. ( Id. at p. 1072.) The court decided the agency does not have an absolute right to dismiss an original petition (or one of several bases for jurisdiction) over objection of minor's counsel. Although the agency has sole discretion to file a dependency petition, once it has exercised that discretion it cannot then divest the juvenile court of jurisdiction and potentially jeopardize the welfare of the minor. ( Id. at p. 1073.) When minor's counsel objects to dismissal, the proper procedure is a hearing on an order to show cause requiring the agency to establish why the petition should be dismissed. Minor's counsel may present evidence and make recommendations to the court to assure the most appropriate resolution for the minor, but does not step into the shoes of the agency. (Id. at pp. 1074-1075.)