In Re Norma M.

53 Cal.App.3d 344 (1975) 125 Cal. Rptr. 721 In re NORMA M., a Minor, et al.

DEPARTMENT OF ADOPTIONS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

LILLIAN D., Objector and Appellant.

Docket No. 75-725. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.

November 25, 1975. [345] COUNSEL

Daniel M. Luevano, Rosalyn M. Chapman, John E. McDermott, W. Kenneth Rice, John Maraldo, Martin H. Flam and Richard Paz for Objector and Appellant.

John H. Larson, County Counsel, and Patrick Gardiner, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT.[*]

On petition of the Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions pursuant to Civil Code section 232, the superior court found that appellant Lillian D. had abandoned three of her minor children. That court entered judgment declaring the children free from appellant's custody and control. (1) Appellant, an indigent represented by appointed counsel in the trial court (see Civ. Code, § 237.5), filed a notice of appeal and now moves for appointment of counsel on appeal.

[346] In In re Simeth, 40 Cal. App.3d 982 [115 Cal. Rptr. 617], this court appointed counsel on an indigent mother's appeal from a juvenile court order finding her daughter a dependent child pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 600. We found the appointment authorized by the amendment of certain statutes subsequent to our earlier decision in In re Robinson, 8 Cal. App.3d 783 [87 Cal. Rptr. 678], cert. den., sub. nom., Kaufman v. Carter (1971) 402 U.S. 964 [28 L.Ed.2d 128, 91 S.Ct. 1624]. The concurring opinion in Simeth concluded that appointment of counsel was also implicitly authorized by the then recently adopted rule 251 of the California Rules of Court.[1]