Kirkpatrick v. Richard D.

[594]

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

Richard D., a minor, appeals

1

from an order of the superior court in a juvenile proceeding under section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,

2

declaring him a ward of the court and committing him to a camp program.

3

Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the juvenile court entered an order reading as follows: “Camp Community Placement Order Terminated. Case Dismissed.” Based on that order, the Attorney General has asked us to dismiss the appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we deny that motion and affirm the order.

I

We know of no provision in the Juvenile Court Act for the “dismissal” of a section 602 proceeding after a finding of wardship has been made and entered, a disposition hearing held, and rehabilitative disposition order made. The Attorney General cites to us the decision in

In re W. R. W.

(1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1029 [95 Cal.Rptr. 354]. But in that case the “dismissal” was ordered at the disposition hearing and the case stands only for the proposition that “dismissal” is a proper method of disposition of a section 602 case even though that mode of disposition is not listed in section 725. Here the disposition order was that the custody of the minor be taken from his parents and that he be “placed in the care, custody, and control of the Probation Officer for placement in the camp program.” We treat the so-called “dismissal” in the case at bench as being an order of “termination” under section 778.

4

In

In re Katherine R.

(1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 354 [86 Cal.Rptr. 281], the appellate court dismissed an appeal from an order for supervision, made under section 601. But in that case the appeal had attacked only the re