The Supreme Court last week ordered additional briefing in In re Ja.O. and People v. Superior Court (Guevara).
Ja.O.
Ja.O. is a case under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and complementary state statutory law. The issue is whether the duty of a child welfare agency to inquire of extended family members and others about a child’s potential Indian ancestry applies to children who are taken into custody under a protective custody warrant. The Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal opinion in Ja.O. said “no” because, interpreting Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2(b) as then written, it held the inquiry duty applies “only if th[e] child has been placed into [Children and Family Services’] temporary custody pursuant to [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 306.” (In re Ja.O. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 672, 678; link added.)
The court granted review in July 2023 and has since added many Ja.O. grant-and-holds to its docket. (See here.) Initial briefing — including responses to amici curiae briefs — was completed in May of this year, but the court now wants thoughts about new legislation. More about the case here.
The court has directed the parties, and gave existing amici permission, to file supplemental briefs “addressing the significance on this case, if any, of Assembly Bill No. 81 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.), enacted as Stats. 2024, ch. 656.” (Link added.) The legislation was effective immediately on enactment.
AB 81 is a large piece of legislation, but the court is probably interested in the part amending section 224.2(b). As summarized by the Legislative Counsel, the amendment seems to broaden the inquiry duty by “specify[ing] that a county welfare department or county probation department has a duty to inquire whether the child is or may be an Indian child when first contacted regarding a child [and] requir[ing] a court presiding over any juvenile proceeding that could result in placement of an Indian child with someone other than a parent or Indian custodian, to inquire at the first hearing on a petition whether the child is, or may be, an Indian child, as specified.” Additionally, an Assembly floor analysis of the final bill states that the bill “[c]lafi[ies] that a county welfare department or county probation department has an obligation to inquire whether a child is an Indian child, as specified, when a child is placed on a temporary custody pursuant to a warrant.”
This could be another instance of the Legislature acting to in effect decide a pending Supreme Court case. (See: Supreme Court clears the way for Berkeley student housing at People’s Park.)
Supplemental briefing, including responses, are to be completed by November 26.
Guevara
The Guevara case is expected to decide whether the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) apply when a defendant is resentenced under Senate Bill No. 483 (Pen. Code, § 1172.75).
The court granted review in March 2024, and I count five Guevara grant-and-holds thus far. Initial party briefing was completed two months ago and the last of two amicus briefs was filed on October 2. More about the case — including the Court of Appeal majority’s statement that “the law is not ‘a ass’ ” — here.
The court has told the parties to file a new round of briefing “addressing whether defendants qualify as ‘presently serving an indeterminate term’ under Penal Code section 1170.126 if they were serving such a term on the effective date of the statute, or only if they are currently serving such an indeterminate term.” (Link added.) The supplemental opening brief is due November 13, a supplemental answering brief is to be file within 21 days after the supplemental opening brief, and a reply can be filed within 12 days after the supplemental answering brief.
