In re W.B. CA5

Filed 11/21/25 In re W.B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re W.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F088736 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JD145421-00) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION S.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Christie Canales Norris, Judge. S.V., in propria persona. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

In this juvenile dependency case, S.V. (mother), mother of minor child W.B., appeals, in propria persona, from the juvenile court’s postdisposition order relieving her attorney and appointing her new counsel following a Marsden1-type hearing on September 25, 2024. Her primary contention is that the court did not adequately examine the parties on the alleged failings of counsel’s representation.2 Mother has not asserted she was in any way harmed or prejudiced by the alleged errors, as the court ultimately relieved her attorney and appointed her a new one. She therefore has not established grounds for reversal. We affirm the juvenile court’s order from which mother appeals.3

1 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 2 Mother’s notice of appeal only lists the September 25, 2024 order, but her briefing raises several additional issues unrelated to that order. We do not address those contentions as they are not properly before us here. We note that mother has also appealed from the juvenile court’s dispositional order in the underlying dependency case, where she raises many of the issues raised in the present appeal, including that the protective custody warrant was invalid, that the jurisdictional and dispositional findings were supported by insufficient evidence, and that her attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. We addressed those issues to the extent they were properly before us in the nonpublished opinion issued in that appeal, and affirmed the dispositional order. (In re W.B. (Aug. 20, 2025, F088142) [nonpub. opn.].) 3 As of the issuance of this opinion, mother’s reunification services have been terminated at the six-month review hearing, and a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing was set. Mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ, which this court denied by written opinion. (S.V. v. Superior Court (Feb. 21, 2025, F088973) [nonpub. opn.].) All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated. Additionally, this court is informed the section 366.26 hearing was conducted on June 12, 2025, and parental rights were terminated. Both mother and W.B.’s father have appealed from the order terminating their parental rights, and the appeal is pending and in the briefing stage in case No. F090001.