## Facts

- Minors Christopher G. and Huy D. faced a juvenile delinquency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 for alleged vandalism based on throwing rocks at Arsenio Torres’s car.
- Torres separately pursued a civil harassment matter and obtained a temporary restraining order against the minors.
- The civil harassment case was sent to mediation, conducted by volunteer mediator Kristen Rinaker.
- During mediation, Torres allegedly stated he did not see who threw rocks at his car, a statement inconsistent with expected delinquency hearing testimony identifying the minors.
- The minors sought to subpoena Rinaker to testify in the delinquency proceeding to impeach Torres with the alleged prior inconsistent mediation statement.
- Rinaker resisted the subpoena, citing statutory mediation confidentiality (Evidence Code § 1119, formerly § 1152.5) and privacy interests, and argued the minors waived any right to compel mediation testimony by participating in confidential mediation.
- The juvenile court ruled Rinaker could be called as an impeachment witness; Rinaker sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 juvenile delinquency proceeding is a “civil action or other noncriminal proceeding” such that Evidence Code § 1119 mediation confidentiality applies.
2. If § 1119 applies, whether minors’ constitutional confrontation and effective impeachment rights can require disclosure of mediation statements.
3. Whether the mediator’s or witness’s privacy interests categorically bar compelled disclosure of mediation statements for impeachment in delinquency proceedings.
4. Whether the minors waived confrontation/impeachment rights by participating in confidential mediation.
5. What procedure is required to limit any disclosure while protecting constitutional rights (including whether an in camera hearing is required).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that a § 602 juvenile delinquency proceeding is a “civil action” within Evidence Code § 1119, so mediation confidentiality applies by statute.
- The court held mediation confidentiality is not absolute in this setting and must give way when necessary to protect a minor’s constitutional right to effective cross-examination and impeachment of an adverse witness.
- The court rejected a categorical privacy bar to disclosure where the evidence is sought for impeachment in a quasi-criminal delinquency adjudication.
- The court found no waiver because constitutional waiver requires a knowing, intelligent relinquishment, and the minors could not knowingly waive impeachment use of statements they did not know would be made.
- The court granted writ relief in part and directed the juvenile court to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether, and to what limited extent, the mediator’s testimony is necessary, permitting disclosure only as needed for effective impeachment.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence Code § 1119 mediation confidentiality extends to juvenile delinquency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 as “civil” proceedings for purposes of the statute.
- A minor in a delinquency proceeding has confrontation and cross-examination rights that include meaningful impeachment of adverse witnesses.
- When statutory mediation confidentiality conflicts with the constitutional right to effective impeachment in a delinquency proceeding, confidentiality yields to the extent necessary to protect the constitutional right.
- Privacy interests tied to mediation communications do not categorically preclude limited disclosure when impeachment necessity is shown in a quasi-criminal adjudication.
- Courts must use an in camera review procedure to assess necessity and to restrict disclosure to the minimum required for effective impeachment.

## Conclusion

The court required application of mediation confidentiality in juvenile delinquency matters but held that, if mediator testimony is necessary to impeach a key witness and protect confrontation rights, confidentiality must yield after an in camera determination and only to the narrow extent required.


Rinaker v. Superior Court, 62 Cal. App. 4th 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)