California
Appeals
California Appeals
eBook
Augmentation.
 

Augmentation: Rule of Court 8.416(d)(2)-good cause-In re A.B

I

A

            The Agency concedes the duty of inquiry was breached here.  Further, it raises no standing or waiver argument.[4]  Rather, the Agency moves to augment the record on appeal with a Parental Notification of Indian Status form that Angelique signed and filed on March 21, 2008, in the juvenile dependency branch of the Monterey County Superior Court, in a matter involving A.B.'s sibling or half-sibling.  Angelique checked the box on the form that states, "I have no Indian ancestry as far as I know."

            The Agency filed a certified copy of the document at the juvenile court on May 13, 2008, in conjunction with a permanency planning hearing scheduled for July 23, and asked that the court confirm its original finding that the ICWA is inapplicable.   The Agency contends that because Angelique has admitted she has no Indian heritage, reversal is unwarranted because the breach of the duty of inquiry did not prejudice Leonard.

            Rule 8.155(a)(1)(A) allows this court to order the record augmented with "[a]ny document filed or lodged in the case in superior court."  Rule 8.340(c) provides, "At any time, on motion of a party or on its own motion, the reviewing court may order the record augmented or corrected as provided in rule 8.155."  Moreover, under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) we may take judicial notice of a record of any court of this state.

            Leonard objects to the augmentation motion on the ground of untimeliness.  Under rule 8.416(d)(2), a respondent must serve and file a motion to augment the record within 15 days after the appellant's opening brief is filed, but under rule 8.416(f) "the reviewing court may order extensions of time, but must require an exceptional showing of good cause."  Leonard filed his opening brief on April 4, 2008, and the Agency did not move to augment the record until May 29, 2008.  The Agency requests relief from the 15-day limitation, and we find it has made a showing of good cause.  The Agency explains that "various factors contribut[ed] to the late filing [including] time needed to have Monterey County mail [the form]; time for the Agency . . . to prepare its additional information report; time for the report and attachment to be filed in the juvenile court . . . ; and time for obtaining the certified copy for this motion."  Since the Agency filed its motion to augment on the same date it filed its respondent's brief, Leonard had plenty of time to reply and suffered no prejudice.

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Definitions-Table of Contents
Standard of Review-Table of Contents

Previous Page