Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Gary Vincent, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Nos. JUV089230 & CIVSS702447.
Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs, Scott B. Spriggs and Wesley D. Hellerud, for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Parties in Interest.
OPINION
McKINSTER J.
In this matter we have reviewed the petition and considered the record. Real parties in interest have not filed a response, despite our invitation to do so. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
A juvenile court has broad and exclusive authority to determine whether, and to what extent, to grant access to confidential juvenile court records. We review the court’s decision for abuse of discretion. (R.S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th. 1049, 1055.)
In Navajo Express v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 981, the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit sought discovery of the plaintiff’s juvenile records to counter a claim the plaintiff had no history of emotional problems prior to the accident. (Id. at p. 983.) The court determined the defendants were entitled to limited access to the records, after they were reviewed by the court in camera, and after they were found by the court to be directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument the statutory provisions designed to protect him made his records not subject to discovery in a civil action brought by him. The court reasoned the provisions contemplate “that situations will exist where inspection by third parties will be permitted and puts the protection of confidentiality of the records within the discretion of the juvenile court. The purpose of preserving confidentiality can be served by not permitting inspection by the third party before an initial in camera inspection by the court.” (Id. at pp. 985–986.)
Navajo suggested certain guidelines for disclosure of juvenile records, and the California Rules of Court established procedures incorporating these suggestions. “In determining whether to authorize inspection or release of juvenile case files, in whole or in part, the court must balance the interests of the child and other parties to the juvenile court proceedings, the interests of the petitioner, and the interests of the public.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.552(e)(4).)
“If the court grants the petition, the court must find that the need for discovery outweighs the policy considerations favoring confidentiality of juvenile case files. The confidentiality of juvenile case files is intended to protect the privacy rights of the child.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.552(e)(5).)
The court may permit disclosure of juvenile case files only insofar as is necessary, and only if petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the records requested are necessary and have substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.552(e)(6).)
Also, “[i]f, after in-camera review and review of any objections, the court determines that all or a portion of the juvenile case file may be disclosed, the court must make appropriate orders, specifying the information to be disclosed and the procedure for providing access to it.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.552(e)(7).) As noted by one court, these rules recognize “competing interests, including the public interest, may tip the balance in favor of disclosure.” (In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 235.) “While it is the intent of the Legislature that juvenile court records remain confidential, the policy of confidentiality is not absolute.” (In re R.G. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1414.)
In the present case, evidence of the nature of the personal relationship that existed between the decedent and her children, the real parties in interest, has a bearing on the compensation for loss of society, comfort and protection in a wrongful death action. (Corder v. Corder (2007) 41 Cal.4th 644.) Thus, the juvenile dependency records are relevant in this case to show the relationship between the deceased mother and the children. The children have been deposed and have testified to the extent of their relationship with mother. Petitioners should be able to rebut that and the juvenile dependency records reflect whether or not there was a lack of contact or visitation or the lack of attempt to regain custody.
The juvenile court noted that the records were relevant but seemed to believe that the information could not be restricted and that real parties in interest should not have to suffer by having their “dirty laundry” aired in public. While the court has the discretion when balancing the interests, its weighing process was skewed because of its view that disclosure would be public, no matter what orders it made. Both case authority and the court rules provide for restrictions on disclosure, and we will not presume and the trial court should not have assumed that its orders restricting access would either be disobeyed or useless.
The juvenile court can insist that petitioners be more specific about the records it seeks, but the court can itself limit the information once it conducts an in camera review.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to set aside its order denying petitioner’s request for discovery of juvenile dependency records and to issue a new order granting discovery in accordance with the applicable California Rules of Court.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
Petitioners are to recover their costs.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J., RICHLI J.