## Facts

- Los Angeles County’s Department of Public Social Services filed a petition under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 600(a) to have Vicki Lee R. declared a dependent child.
- At the adjudicatory hearing before a juvenile court referee, no Department attorney appeared; a deputy probation officer was present.
- Over the mother’s objection, the referee took over the presentation of the state’s case by conducting the direct and redirect examination of the Department’s witnesses.
- The referee also cross-examined the mother’s witnesses, made objections to questioning by the mother’s counsel, ruled on objections, and then decided the merits.
- The referee found the dependency allegations true, declared the child a dependent under § 600(a), and set a later disposition hearing.
- Before disposition, the mother petitioned for a writ of prohibition to stop further juvenile court action on the ground that the hearing was not fair because the referee served as both advocate and adjudicator.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits a juvenile court referee, in a contested dependency adjudication, to act as the state’s de facto advocate by examining and cross-examining witnesses while also serving as the neutral decision-maker.
2. Whether extraordinary relief is appropriate to bar further proceedings based on a dependency finding reached through a non-neutral adjudicatory process.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ of prohibition.
- The court held that the referee’s conduct denied the mother a fair hearing because he effectively presented and advanced the state’s case while adjudicating it.
- The juvenile court was prohibited from proceeding further (including disposition) based on the tainted adjudication.
- The matter was required to be reheard in a new adjudicatory proceeding before an impartial judicial officer.

## Legal Principles

- Due process in dependency adjudications requires a neutral and detached decision-maker.
- An adjudicator may not assume an advocacy function for one side by structuring and presenting that party’s case, examining its witnesses as a surrogate attorney, and cross-examining the opposing party’s witnesses.
- The absence of counsel for the state does not justify the decision-maker’s abandonment of neutrality.
- When the adjudicatory phase is conducted by a non-neutral fact-finder, subsequent proceedings resting on that determination are invalid and may be restrained by writ.

## Conclusion

A dependency adjudication is invalid when the referee functions as both prosecutor and judge; due process requires separation of advocacy and adjudication, and proceedings founded on such an adjudication must be halted and reheard before an impartial decision-maker.


Lois R. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. App. 3d 895, 97 Cal. Rptr. 158 (Ct. App. 1971)