In re I.W. CA4/2

Filed 11/2/26 In re I.W. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re I.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E087495 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J266451) v. OPINION T.W., Defendant; W.Z., JR., Petitioner and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Jeffrey J. Douglas and Jeffrey J. Douglas for Petitioner and Appellant. 1  Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Glenn C. Moret, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Petitioner and appellant William Ziemann, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s denial of his criminal defense attorney’s petition on his behalf to access a minor’s juvenile dependency case file. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827; all further statutory references are to this code.) We affirm the juvenile court’s ruling. BACKGROUND Ziemann’s attorney, Jeffrey J. Douglas, filed a form petition (Judicial Council Forms, form JV-570) in October 2025 requesting access to juvenile court dependency case records for I.W. (hereafter Minor), whom Douglas identified as having been the subject of prior San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) dependency “investigations/cases.” Minor was 15 years old at the time of the petition and seven or eight years old at the relevant time in the underlying dependency court proceedings for which Ziemann sought Minor’s juvenile court file. Douglas petitioned for access to Minor’s juvenile case file on Ziemann’s behalf. Douglas stated the “reason[] for this petition” was that Ziemann was the subject of “a criminal prosecution” in San Bernardino County in which Ziemann “is accused of sexual abuse of two minors.” Douglas gave the case number for the criminal proceedings (FWV20001895). He did not identify the sexual offense or offenses charged against Ziemann, nor did the petition provide any information about the nature or circumstances 2 of Ziemann’s alleged abuse of the minors, nor any dates or a time frame for the alleged abuse, nor when the abuse allegations were made. The petition stated the full names of Ziemann’s two minor accusers, A.W. and M.T. The petition did not indicate their ages or state how Ziemann knew the minors, except to say that M.T. was Ziemann’s niece by marriage, Ziemann’s wife had provided foster care for M.T. on unspecified dates, and that A.W. was Minor’s sister. According to the petition, Minor had been a foster child in Ziemann’s home in November 2017, which was eight years before Ziemann filed his petition to access Minor’s dependency file. The petition also stated that at unspecified dates A.W. and “three other siblings of” Minor had been under the juvenile court’s and DCFS’s dependency supervision. The petition did not indicate whether A.W. or the other siblings besides Minor were in foster care in Ziemann’s home at any time. Douglas stated as the basis for the petition that in Minor’s juvenile court dependency proceedings in or around November 2017, A.W. and M.T. were “alleged . . . to have been sexually abused by [M]inor.” According to the petition, “These allegations were investigated by DCFS and resulted in [Minor] being removed from the foster home of [Douglas’s client] William and [William’s wife] Laura Ziemann.” The petition also alleged that Minor’s dependency case file would show that, in or around late March 2018, when Minor was eight years old, Minor claimed “that his sister [A.W.] sexually touched [M.T.]” and “[t]his was also investigated by DCFS.” According to the petition, Douglas needed Minor’s dependency case file because “[t]hese records will support [Ziemann’s] 3 defense [in his criminal case] of third-party culpability as well as bias by the accusing witnesses and motivation to lie.” Douglas knew and provided in his petition the juvenile court case number (J266451) for Minor’s dependency proceedings. The petition stated in three paragraphs the foregoing grounds for access to Minor’s dependency case file; the petition also noted in two further paragraphs a civil action against Ziemann as a codefendant. The petition seemed to indicate Ziemann sought in Minor’s dependency court juvenile case file any civil court discovery results he could obtain that arose from the civil action. According to the petition, the civil action had been filed on an unspecified date against Ziemann and “against the County of San Bernardino by all five W[.] children,” referring to Minor and his siblings. The petition provided the superior court case number for the civil action (“CIVSB2201446”), but few other details—omitting for instance whether the action was ongoing, completed, or dismissed. The petition noted only that in the civil action “there were additional interviews of the relevant parties, including at least one deposition of Laura Ziemann [i.e., Ziemann’s wife],” who was “the foster parent and biological aunt of [M.T.].” In mentioning Laura Ziemann’s deposition, Douglas’s petition stated on Ziemann’s behalf: “I seek recordings and/or transcripts of any and all evaluations, interviews, depositions or other statements of any percipient or expert witness alleging or denying psychological, physical and/or sexual abuse by [I.W.] of any minor residing in the Ziemann (foster parent) household.” The petition stated regarding the civil action that Ziemann had been “in jail pending his criminal trial during the civil discovery process,” that all discovery provided to him as a 4 self-represented defendant in the civil action had been “turned over” to the public defender’s office, which “lost most of that civil discovery,” and therefore “the discovery is no longer available to me [i.e., Douglas] in the [pending] criminal prosecution of Mr. Ziemann.” The petition closed with proof of service (Judicial Council Forms, form JV-569) that notice of the petition had been served on various entities and individuals, including CFS, Minor’s guardian, and the “Attorney of record for the child.” Two objections were filed against the petition, one by county counsel on behalf of CFS and one by an attorney who identified himself as Minor’s “former 317(e) counsel,” namely, Jack H. Anthony. (See § 317, subd. (e) [providing in dependency proceedings for appointment of counsel “charged . . . with the representation of the child’s interests”].) Anthony objected to release of Minor’s dependency case file on multiple grounds, including his “belief . . . that [the] statements in [the petition requesting release] are inaccurate.” Anthony requested before disclosure of any portion of Minor’s case file that the court conduct “an in camera inspection first . . . to determine whether the contents of the records have been accurately characterized in the petition.” Anthony also objected, as a threshold matter, that there was “no showing of relevance to the criminal case against William Ziemann where he is accused of and being criminally prosecuted for the sexual abuse of [Minor’s] older sister and Mr. Ziemann’s niece.” Anthony repeated his request that the court preview Minor’s case file before allowing disclosure, to ascertain “whether 5 the records contain any contents that would be relevant to the criminal prosecution of Mr. Ziemann.” County counsel also objected to release of Minor’s dependency case file. County counsel noted that two years earlier, in November 2023, the juvenile court, acting through the same judge considering Douglas’s petition, had “previously denied a similar petition request for records regarding [Minor] from a different criminal defense attorney on behalf of Mr. Ziemann for the same Criminal Case.” County counsel requested that the court similarly determine that opening Minor’s dependency case file for Douglas’s or Ziemann’s access “was not in the Child’s best interest, and [that] the petitioner had not shown . . . the requested records were necessary and had substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner.” County counsel summarized CFS’s position that the petition’s stated “need for access does not outweigh the privacy rights of the Child and the policy considerations favoring confidentiality of the Juvenile Case File.” In particular, county counsel faulted the petition for “lacking supporting information” regarding Ziemann’s criminal case, such as “the Penal Code sections at issue . . . or dates of any alleged illegal conduct” to help ascertain the relevance, if any, of Minor’s dependency proceedings. County counsel argued the “dearth of information,” such as “circumstances surrounding any alleged incidents relating to any charges” and the omission of any “specific dates, or even general dates regarding any charges,” prevented any “proper explanation as to the relevance of the requested records to the Criminal Case.” County counsel also critiqued the petition’s disclosure demands as overbroad in 6 “essentially request[ing] the entirety of [Minor’s] confidential juvenile case file records.” The objection cited as an example of the petition’s invasive overbreadth its demand “for ‘all psychological [and] psychiatric . . . evaluations of [Minor],’ ” as well as all “records relating to ‘sexual activity with minors by anyone in the household . . . ,’ ” particularly after “fail[ing] to provide any relevant time period or dates regarding any alleged conduct by Mr. Ziemann.” County counsel viewed the petition as “basically an impermissible fishing expedition.” County counsel noted as background to Douglas’s petition that Minor’s dependency proceedings “started in . . . 2016 when he was just 6 years old and ended when he was adopted in . . . 2023, when he was 13 years old.” Noting “the only two dates cited in the [p]etition [were] November 2017 and March 2018” when Minor was at most “only 8 years of age” (county counsel’s emphasis), county counsel objected to releasing Minor’s dependency case file to Douglas because “the relevancy of the requests seems highly speculative and there is a low probative value which is insufficient to allow such broad sweeping requests of the Child’s records . . . .” To “illustrat[e] the overly broad and inappropriate” nature of the petition, county counsel also cited the petition’s demand for “civil discovery for a civil case” in which Ziemann was a party. Stating that “civil discovery is not part of the Juvenile Case [F]ile,” county counsel argued that “the request for such records is not an appropriate request for this court to rule upon,” given “any civil discovery exchanged in the cited civil case happened under the purview of the particular civil court involved.” 7  In two orders filed on the same day, the juvenile court denied the petition. In a form order entitled “Order on Petition for Access to Juvenile Case File” (Judicial Council Forms, form JV-573), the court checkmarked boxes recording as its findings and orders that “the request is denied” and “Petitioner has not shown good cause for the release of the requested records.” (Hereafter Order JV-573.) Similarly, in more detail on its form order entitled “Order After Judicial Review on Petition for Access to Juvenile Case File” (Judicial Council Forms, form JV-574), the court checkmarked a box recording that, “After a review of the juvenile case file and review of any filed objections . . . , the court denies the request.” (Italics added.) In the same order, the court checkmarked boxes stating the reasons for denial of the petition as follows: “Access is not in the child’s best interests” and “Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence the records are necessary and have substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner.” (Hereafter Order JV-574.) Both of the juvenile court’s form orders noted the dependency court’s case number (J266451) for Minor’s juvenile case file in the underlying dependency proceedings. The case number was the same one Douglas identified in Ziemann’s petition for access to Minor’s juvenile case file. DISCUSSION An order denying a petition for access to a juvenile’s dependency court records is appealable as a final judgment in a special proceeding. (Pack v. Kings County Human Services Agency (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 821, 826, fn. 4.) 8  A. Appellant’s Contentions Ziemann contends the juvenile court erred by denying his petition to access Minor’s juvenile court file. He asserts Order JV-574 is “simply incorrect.” Specifically, he challenges the juvenile court’s finding in that order that “[p]etitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the records requested are necessary and have substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner.” Ziemann challenges this finding by arguing that the conduct “alleged by the complaining witnesses” in the criminal prosecution against him “bears a striking resemblance to the conduct that [Minor] was alleged to have committed.” Referencing a minor (T.W., an infant) unmentioned in his petition below, and new facts absent from his petition, Ziemann asserts that “because of the touching of the infant T.W.’s genitals,” which Ziemann says was “purportedly at the direction of” Minor, “the remaining minors in the household were directed not to change T.W.’s diapers.” Ziemann then asserts, again for the first time on appeal, that “[i]t was the violation of that rule” (i.e., prohibiting any minors from changing T.W.’s diapers) “and the consequent potential punishment which immediately preceded the accusation [apparently by his accusers A.W. and M.T. in the criminal case] against Mr. Ziemann.” Although Ziemann’s argument is far from clear, we deduce from these new assertions in his opening brief that his claim on appeal is that, contrary to the juvenile court’s ruling, Minor’s juvenile court file is relevant to Ziemann’s need to defend himself against criminal child sex abuse allegations (not levied by Minor, but by A.W. and M.T., 9 both of whom Minor allegedly abused) because Ziemann thinks he will find in Minor’s dependency records evidence to undermine A.W.’s and M.T.’s credibility. Put another way, Ziemann’s relevance argument seems to be that he believes Minor’s juvenile court file will support his defense that A.W.’s and M.T.’s accusations against him are unfounded and purely vengeful or retaliatory, possibly prompted by their (i.e., A.W.’s and M.T.’s) violation of a rule prohibiting these minors from changing the infant T.W.’s diapers. We are not certain we have accurately restated Ziemann’s argument, but, as we explain below, his appeal falters on multiple independently fatal grounds. Before addressing those flaws individually, we set out the manner in which a petition for access to a juvenile’s dependency court records proceeds, and the standard governing appellate review of a juvenile court’s decision to grant or deny access to those records. B. Access to Juvenile Records The Legislature has expressly stated that “juvenile court records, in general, should be confidential.” (§ 827, subd. (b)(1).) Section 827 sets forth detailed provisions to protect this confidentiality. (J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1337 (J.E.).) It specifies who is authorized to inspect juvenile case files without a court order. (§ 827, subd. (a)(1); J.E., at p. 1337.) Other individuals or entities may gain access only by petitioning the juvenile court. “Section 827 . . . contains provisions that permit unauthorized persons to directly petition the juvenile court for access to the confidential records. (§ 827, subd. (a)[(3).]) Under section 827 the juvenile court has ‘exclusive 10 authority to determine whether and to what extent to grant access to confidential juvenile records’ to unauthorized persons. [Citation.] This statutory scheme reflects a legislative determination that the juvenile court has ‘both the “ ‘sensitivity and expertise’ to make decisions about access to juvenile records.” ’ ” (J.E., at p. 1337, fn. omitted.) Rule 5.552 of the California Rules of Court sets out the petition procedure to request access to juvenile court records pursuant to section 827. (All further rules citations are to the California Rules of Court.) The petitioner must identify the “specific file sought” and “describe in detail the reasons the file is being sought and its relevance to the proceeding or other purpose for which petitioner wishes to inspect or obtain the file.” (Rule 5.552(a)(1), (2).) The petitioner bears the burden to show good cause justifying access to the records. (Rule 5.552(c)(1), (c)(2).) Failure to show good cause incurs summary denial of the petition. (Rule 5.552(c)(1).) If the petitioner shows good cause, the court may—but is not required to—hold a hearing to consider the merits of the petition. (Rule 5.552 (c)(2).) The court may instead make its determination based on its in camera review of the juvenile court file. Thus: “Whether or not the court holds a hearing, if the court determines that there may be information or documents in the records sought to which the petitioner may be entitled, the juvenile court . . . must conduct an in camera review of the . . . juvenile dependency case file and any objections.” (Rule 5.552(c)(3).) In determining whether to authorize disclosure, the court “must balance the interests of the child . . . , the interests of the petitioner, and the interests of the public” 11 (rule 5.552(c)(4)) and may permit access “only insofar as is necessary, and only if petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the records requested are necessary and have substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner” (rule 5.552(c)(6)). To grant the petition, “the court must find that the need for access outweighs the policy considerations favoring confidentiality of the juvenile . . . case file.” (Rule 5.552(c)(5).) “Generally, a juvenile court has broad and exclusive authority to determine whether and to what extent to grant access to confidential juvenile records pursuant to section 827.” (In re Elijah S. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1541.) We ordinarily review the merits of the juvenile court’s decision under the abuse of discretion standard. (Ibid.) C. Analysis Here, the appeal falters for several threshold reasons. First, appellant challenges the juvenile court’s determination in Order JV-574 that he failed to show “substantial relevance to [a] legitimate need of petitioner” to gain access to Minor’s juvenile case file, but appellant fails on appeal to dispute the other prong of the court’s ruling, namely that “[a]ccess is not in the child’s best interests.” When considering a section 827 petition for access to a juvenile’s dependency court file, “ ‘[f]irst, and foremost, the court’s discretion must be directed at determining what is in the best interests of the minor[], for that obviously is its primary concern at all times in the juvenile proceeding.’ ” (See In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 239.) The court’s best interests finding indicates it rejected appellant’s claim that his “need for 12 access outweighs the policy considerations favoring confidentiality of the juvenile . . . case file.” (Rule 5.552(c)(5).) Because appellant does not challenge the juvenile court’s best interests finding, that finding stands as an independent basis to affirm the court’s ruling. In other words, a juvenile’s best interests may “outweigh” a petitioner’s interest in disclosure even where there is “substantial relevance to the legitimate need of petitioner” (rule 5.552(c)(5) & (6)). We must presume that is the case here, given that appellant does not contest the juvenile court’s best interests finding. (See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham) [on appeal, underlying ruling is presumed correct; the appellant bears burden to demonstrate error]; see also Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 [reviewing court “ ‘not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them”; “absence of cogent legal argument . . . allows this court to treat the contentions as waived’ ”].) Second, even assuming arguendo that in challenging the juvenile court’s relevance ruling, appellant also intended implicitly to contest the court’s best interests finding (but see Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [appellate briefs “must support each point by argument”]), appellant’s relevance challenge falters again under basic appellate review principles. Appellant asserts for the first time on appeal new alleged “facts” to make his relevance claim. These newly asserted facts that were absent from the underlying petition include that: (1) appellant fostered not just Minor, but also appellant’s accusers in the criminal prosecution, A.W. and M.T.; (2) all three juveniles lived in the household at the same 13 time; (3) an infant (T.W.) was also in the household; (4) Minor allegedly directed the touching (by an unspecified person or persons) of T.W.’s genitals; (5) this resulted in a rule instituted by an unknown person or persons or entity barring any minors from changing T.W.’s diapers; (6) appellant implies that A.W. and M.T. violated this rule; (7) these minors faced punishment (by an unknown person or persons or entity) for violation of the no-diaper-changing rule; and (8) this potential punishment “immediately preceded” the accusations of sexual abuse against appellant that led to his criminal prosecution. None of this was before the juvenile court. The juvenile court cannot, in making its relevance determination, be faulted on the basis of alleged facts left out of the underlying petition. (See generally People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433 [“A party cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct.”].) The four corners of the petition were where petitioner had the opportunity to make his record of alleged facts to demonstrate legitimate need for Minor’s juvenile court file, including the substantial relevance of Minor’s case file to petitioner’s need and that this need outweighed Minor’s best interests. The new “facts” that appellant asserts for the first time on appeal to challenge the juvenile court’s ruling are noncognizable. (Cf. State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WallDesign Inc. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1528, fn.1 [“ ‘if it is not in the record, it did not happen’ ”].) Appellant’s appeal fails independently on this ground alone. 14  Finally, the appeal fails for a third independent, fundamental reason. Appellant omits the record necessary for us to review his claim. “It is the burden of the party challenging the judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 (Nielsen).) If an appellant fails to provide an adequate record, the court’s decision must be affirmed. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609; Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 [“ ‘if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed’ ”].) Simply put, we cannot review the juvenile court’s finding that Minor’s dependency court file has no substantial relevance to appellant’s legitimate need—nor the court’s best interests finding—without reviewing Minor’s juvenile case file, and appellant has not met his burden to ensure its filing in the appellate record. (In re N.G. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 474, 483 [“it is the appellant’s burden to produce an adequate record that demonstrates prejudicial, reversible error on appeal”].) Appellant did not ensure inclusion of Minor’s dependency court file in the record on appeal, whether by designating it as part of the clerk’s transcript (rule 8.120(a)(1)(A)) as required under rule 8.121(b)(1)(B) for civil appeals, nor did he proceed by securing “additional record” under rule 8.407(c) as required for dependency appeals. The juvenile court’s denial of appellant’s petition to access Minor’s juvenile court file meant that appellant did not himself have access to the file, but application may be made to the juvenile court to include “additional record” in the clerk’s transcript transmitted from the 15 juvenile court to the appellate court. (Rule 8.407(c).) “An application for additional record must describe the material to be included and explain how it may be useful in the appeal.” (Rule 8.407(c)(2).) The application “must be filed in the superior court with the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as possible.” (Rule 8.407(c)(3).) When an application is not filed before the record is sent to the reviewing court, it is deemed denied. (Ibid.) Denial of an application in the superior court does not preclude a motion in the reviewing court to augment the appellate record (rule 8.407(c)(5)), but appellant neither applied to the superior court nor sought augmentation here. Nor did appellant otherwise attempt to designate Minor’s juvenile case file as part of the record on appeal. (See rule 8.122(a) [requiring appellant to identify each designated document in civil appeals].) In short, appellant did nothing to include Minor’s juvenile case file in the record on appeal. Absent the case file reviewed by the juvenile court in denying appellant’s petition, it is impossible to review appellant’s contentions on appeal challenging the juvenile court’s decision. The appeal fails independently for this reason, in addition to the reasons discussed above.1 1 Appellant also argues for the first time on appeal that he was entitled to have the juvenile court review Minor’s juvenile case file for exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland 1963) 373 U.S. 83, citing J.E., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th 1329. He acknowledges his “[p]etition below omitted the specific term . . . Brady material,” but contends “the gravamen of the [petition’s access] request placed the juvenile court on notice that Brady material was being sought.” We decline to review Brady’s application in these circumstances. Appellant forfeited the claim by not raising it below. (See United States v. Olano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 731 [“ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited . . . by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”].) 16  DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s order denying appellant’s petition to access Minor’s dependency case file is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS LEE J. We concur: RAPHAEL Acting P. J. MENETREZ J. 17