Villareal v. Ethel S.

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J.

Ethel S.,mother of Candy S., a minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court, dated December 12 and 17, 1984, declaring, among other things, that Candy was a ward of the juvenile court.

*

Ms. S.’s

second

and remaining appellate contention is that: “The court has failed to examine the present circumstances as required in a 232 proceeding.”

It will be remembered that the juvenile court’s order stated: “The matter is referred to the State Department of Social Services for the initiation of a [Civil Code section] 232 action.”

[331]

We are of the opinion that no appeal lies from such a “reference” to the State Department of Social Services for initiation of a section 232 action. It is only when a party is “aggrieved” by a judgment or order that he or she may appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 902.) For a valid appeal one must be injuriously affected by the court’s ruling in an immediate and substantial manner, and

not

as a nominal or remote consequence.

(Simac Design, Inc.

v.

Alciati,

92 Cal.App.3d 146, 153 [154 Cal.Rptr. 676];

Winter

v.

Gnaizda,

90 Cal.App.3d 750, 754 [152 Cal.Rptr. 700].) And the rule that an appeal may be taken only by an aggrieved party is “strictly applied by reviewing courts.”

(Kunza

v.

Gaskell,

91 Cal.App.3d 201, 206 [154 Cal.Rptr. 101].)