Sarah L. v. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

Juvenile dependency proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 600, subd. (a).)

1

The minor and her father have filed a purported appeal from orders of the juvenile court granting a rehearing after a proceeding before a referee, and denying their “motion to quash” the rehearing. Petitioner below, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Facts

The facts are limited to the issue of appealability.

In 1970 the minor was declared to be a dependent child, but permitted to remain with her father. In April 1973, DPSS filed a supplementary petition (see §§ 775-777) to remove the minor from her father’s home.

A hearing was held before a referee on May 31, 1973. After taking evidence, the referee stated that she “would much prefer to leave [the minor] home” with her father. The deputy district attorney, representing the DPSS, said: “Your Honor, DPSS recommends that the case be completely dismissed because there is no way to supervise this man and this child. . . . They don’t want to have anything to do with the child.” The referee then ordered that the minor’s status as a dependent child be terminated, and dismissed the case.

On June 13, 1973, after receiving a letter from a DPSS “Coordinator” of “Juvenile Court Services,” questioning the disposition at the May 31 hearing the juvenile court judge ordered: “On the Court’s own motion pursuant to Section 559 . . . the matter is hereby calendared for rehearing as to disposition . . . .”

A motion to quash the rehearing proceedings was noticed by the minor

[91]

and her father, and on August 13, 1973, the motion was heard by the juvenile court judge, who denied it and continued the matter for a new disposition hearing.

Discussion

Appellants contend that the juvenile court judge’s orders of June 13, granting a rehearing based on an ex parte letter from the DPSS coordinator, of August 13, refusing to quash the rehearing, were erroneous or void. The county contends that the orders are not appealable. We agree with the county.