§ 317.5. Competent counsel; entitlement; dependency proceedings [West's Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 317.5 (West LawDesk CD-ROM through 1999 portion of 1999-2000 Reg. Sess. and 1st Ex. Sess.)]
(a) All parties who are represented by counsel at dependency proceedings
shall be entitled to competent counsel.
(b) Each minor who is the subject of a dependency proceeding is a party to
that proceeding.
CREDIT(S)  (Added by Stats.1994, c. 1073 (S.B.783), § 1.)
Research References   Law Review And Journal Commentaries
Who speaks for the child in abuse cases: Autonomy or best interests? 
William Wesley Patton, 40 Orange County Law. 40 (November 1998).
1998 Main Volume
Collateral References: Notes Of Decisions    Competence 1 Review 2
1. Competence
Parent seeking review of claimed violation of statute providing that parties to dependency proceeding shall be entitled to competent counsel must show that counsel failed to act in manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys practicing in field of juvenile dependency law, and must also establish that claimed error was prejudicial. In re Kristin H.(App. 6 Dist. 1996) 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722, 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, review denied. Mother's attorney failed to act in manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorney acting as diligent advocate in juvenile dependency proceeding for purposes of mother's claim of violation of statute requiring representation by competent counsel at dependency proceedings; there was no tactical or practical reason why attorney failed to present report from doctor which was highly favorable to mother and which refuted other doctors' reports that mother was mentally ill and incapable of caring for her child.

In re Kristin H.(App. 6 Dist. 1996) 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722, 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, review denied. Mother's attorney's incompetence in failing to present doctor's report which opined that mother was able to care for her child constituted prima facie showing of prejudice in juvenile dependency proceeding and, thus, remand would be required to determine whether mother is entitled to new trial on grounds of incompetent counsel; result of dependency might have been different if attorney had presented doctor's report, since it was virtually only evidence in mother's favor and refuted testimony of other doctors who claimed that mother was not fit to care for her child. In re Kristin H.(App. 6 Dist. 1996) 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722, 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, review denied.
2. Review
Statute which provides that all parties who are represented by counsel at dependency proceedings shall be entitled to competent counsel includes right to seek judicial review of claims of incompetence of counsel; statute was intended to protect parent's fundamental liberty interest in maintaining parent-child relationship and child's fundamental independent right to be part of family unit, and such rights are not protected if competent counsel is not ensured through judicial review. In re Kristin H.(App. 6 Dist. 1996) 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722, 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, review denied.
Violation of statutory right to counsel in juvenile dependency proceedings is properly reviewed under harmless error test; thus, parent must demonstrate that it is reasonably probable that result more favorable to parent would have been reached in absence of error. In re Kristin H.(App. 6 Dist. 1996) 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722, 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, review denied.