In Re Melvin S.

California Court of Appeal Jul 1, 1976 No. 27802Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the jurisdictional order made by a temporary judge is reviewable on appeal from the dispositional order, and that a judge denying a rehearing of a dispositional order is not required to review the transcript of the jurisdictional hearing.

Issues

Whether the jurisdictional order of a temporary judge is reviewable on appeal from the dispositional order.
Whether the denial of a rehearing of a dispositional order is invalid if the judge did not review the transcript of the jurisdictional hearing.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot due to the minor's release from the camp program.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that that amendment was intended to, and did, effect the recommendation of the Judicial Council that only the dispositional order to be appealable and that the jurisdictional order be subject to review on that one appeal.”

“Since Judge Giannini was concerned only with the dispositional order, we see no reason, and we are cited to no authority, requiring him to investigate the propriety of the order of wardship.”

59 Cal.App.3d 898 (1976) 130 Cal. Rptr. 844 In re MELVIN S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CLARENCE E. CABELL, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

FRANCES S., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 27802. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four.

July 1, 1976. [900] COUNSEL

Ruth Ohanessian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, S. Clark Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Howard J. Schwab and Beverly K. Falk, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

KINGSLEY, J.

The mother of a minor appeals from orders of the superior court, declaring her son to be a ward of the juvenile court and placing him in a camp program. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the orders.

We deal, first, with a procedural matter. The record on appeal treats the case as an appeal from an order of Referee Garfinkle; the People's brief treats it as an appeal from an order of Benjamin Louie, acting as a temporary judge, and from an order of Referee Garfinkle. We regard the appeal as being from the order of Judge Giannini denying a rehearing of Referee Garfinkle's dispositional order. This appeal, however, brings before us the jurisdictional order of Temporary Judge Louie.

As originally enacted, section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, referred to the determination that a minor was a person described in sections 600, 601 or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code as a "judgment." That language led to the opinion that the jurisdictional determination was immediately appealable as a final judgment and that the dispositional order was appealable, under section 800 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as an order after judgment. (See the discussion of that matter in Judicial Council of Cal., 19th Biennial Rep. (1963) pp. 85-86.) (1a) In 1963, section 702 was amended to substitute the term "order" for the former term "judgment." We conclude that that amendment was intended to, and did, effect the recommendation of the Judicial Council that only the dispositional order to be appealable and that the jurisdictional order be subject to review on that one appeal.

In Re Melvin S.

AI Brief

OPINION

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

AI Brief