In Re Sara H.

OPINION

Appellant's parental rights to her daughter Sara H. were terminated by the juvenile court after a hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 Her trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal on her behalf. An appellate attorney was appointed to represent *Page 200 appellant on appeal. This attorney reviewed the entire record and filed an opening brief which states the facts and various standards of review but does not specify any errors or make any arguments as to any appellate issues. Instead, this appellate attorney has filed a brief "pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071]" which "requests this court to independently review the entire record on appeal in this case to determine whether any arguable appellate issues exist." The attorney acknowledges that the California Supreme Court has held in In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 [55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716] (hereafter Sade) that, as she puts it, "Wende review is not required in dependency cases." However, she claims that Sade "did not hold that Wende review is never appropriate in dependency cases" but "merely" that "the court of appeal has discretion to deny Wende review. . . ." She asks "this court to exercise its discretion to grant review in this case since there were errors below and since the case has the severe consequence of termination of parental rights of parents who have never harmed their child in any way."1 Although she asserts that "there were errors below," she does not enumerate any errors. We dismiss the appeal.

ANALYSIS (1) Appellant's contention that Sade left the door open for "discretionary" independent review is contrary to the rationale of Sade and is not supported by any authority. Sade involved an appeal from an order terminating parental rights. (Sade,supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 961.) The appellant in Sade was the father of a child removed from the mother's custody at the age of four days after a premature birth following exposure to the intrauterine effects of the mother's cocaine usage. (Sade,supra, at p. 960.) An appellate attorney was appointed to represent the father on appeal, and the attorney filed a brief which asked the appellate court to "independently review the entire record on appeal" pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071]. (Sade,supra, at pp. 961-962.) The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal on its own motion "as abandoned," and the California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed. (Sade,supra, at p. 965.)

The California Supreme Court very clearly held in Sade that the underlying basis for Wende's "independent review" procedure was not applicable to dependency appeals and should not beextended to apply to dependency appeals. (Sade, supra, 13 Cal. 4th at pp. 981-994.) The California Supreme *Page 201 Court concluded that the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the father's appeal "as abandoned" was not erroneous because the underlying judgment was presumed correct and, in the absence of a claim of error, ". . . the Court of Appeal was presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of any unraised `points' — and, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question." (Sade, supra, at p. 994.)