In re Jullian B. (2000)

[Modification of Opinion (82 Cal.App.4th 1337) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

In re JULLIAN B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSETTE B., Defendant; NORTH FORK RANCHERIA, Intervener and Appellant.

THE COURT. fn. † -

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 14, 2000, be modified as follows:

1. On page 18, line 16 [82 Cal. App. 4th 1350, advance report, 2d par., lines 3-4 (correction made in adv. rep. opn.)], delete "(g)" and in its place insert: (d)(3), so that the line now reads:

pursuant to section 361.4, subdivision (d)(3), or explain

2. On page 19, line 6 [82 Cal. App. 4th 1350, advance report, 3d par., lines 2-3], delete the word "determine" and in its place insert: decide, so that the line now reads:

remains the juvenile court's responsibility to decide

3. On page 19, line 18 [82 Cal. App. 4th 1350, advance report, last par., lines 1-2], delete "(d)(2)" and in its place insert: (d)(3), so that the line now reads:

section 361.4, subdivision (d)(3), and Health and Safety [83 Cal. App. 4th 935b]

4. On page 19, line 20 [82 Cal. App. 4th 1350, advance report, last par., line 3], delete "granting and denying the exemption" and in its place insert:

waiving the application of section 361.4

With the deletions and insertion accomplished in Nos. 3 and 4 above that sentence will now read:

The plain language of both section 361.4, subdivision (d)(3), and Health and Safety Code section 1522, subdivision (g)(1), places responsibility for waiving the application of section 361.4 squarely on the Director of DSS.

5. On page 20, line 10 [82 Cal. App. 4th 1351, advance report, line 7], immediately after the word "correct." add footnote 9, to read as follows:

After the date this opinion was filed, the court received and filed a letter brief prepared by the Attorney General's office on behalf of the Department of Social Services. Pointing out that the Department of Social Services was not a party to the underlying action, the brief was submitted "(1) to provide the court with further information about the Department's and Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services' ('DHHS')prior interaction concerning the interpretation and implementation of section 361.4; (2) to explain the tremendous impact and burden of its decision on the Department; and (3) to respectfully request the [c]ourt to either withdraw its decision from publication, or reconsider its decision on its own motion and accept further briefing from the Department to aid in the [c]ourt's decision on rehearing. We have read and considered the letter brief and have concluded that nothing set forth therein, including specifically the Department's reading of section 361.4, subdivision (d)(3), calls into question our interpretation of the statute. The department's request that we reconsider our decision on our own motion is denied.

Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.

The Attorney General's request to depublish this opinion is denied.

FN †. Before Davis, Acting P. J., Callahan, J., and Hull, J.