In Re Kamelia S.

California Court of Appeal Aug 9, 2000 No. B135000Published

Before: Charles S. Vogel

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An appellant who absconds with a minor child in violation of juvenile court orders is disentitled from seeking appellate review of those same orders. The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant's contemptuous conduct and flight rendered him ineligible for the assistance of an appellate tribunal.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of disentitlement bars an appellant from seeking appellate review of dependency orders when the appellant has absconded with the minor child in violation of those orders.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that appellant may not obtain review of the juvenile court's order and at the same time be in contempt of the very order from which he appeals.”

“It is illogical and inequitable for appellant to seek appellate review of the very orders he has blatantly violated.”

“Under the circumstances, the doctrine of disentitlement is applicable to appellant, requiring dismissal of the appeal.”

98 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224 In re KAMELIA S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Derek S., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B135000. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four.

August 9, 2000. [817] Sharon S. Rollo, Encino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Lloyd W. Penman, County Counsel, and Doraine F. Meyer, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHARLES S. VOGEL, P.J.

Appellant has taken the law into his own hands. He has absconded with his daughter, a minor and dependent child, who was placed in a foster home pursuant to an order of the juvenile court. We conclude that appellant may not obtain review of the juvenile court's order and at the same time be in contempt of the very order from which he appeals. We therefore will dismiss the appeal.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

We summarize the factual background of this appeal simply as a prelude to its dismissal. Appellant Derek S. is the father of Kamelia S., born in January 1997. The minor's mother, Sonya C, is manic-depressive. A psychiatrist had prescribed medication for her condition. On November 18, 1997, Sonya C. suffered a manic episode, which resulted in injuries to Kamelia S. On December 4, 1997, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took Kamelia S. into custody and placed her with appellant.

A petition pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 was filed.[1] Later a dispositional social study was submitted. On January 6, 1998, the court sustained the petition as amended pursuant to In re Malinda S. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 368, 272 Cal. Rptr. 787, 795 P.2d 1244[2] and appellant submitted to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. On March 3, 1998, the court declared the minor a dependent of the court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The court ordered that the minor reside with appellant and the mother, Sonya C, was to have monitored visits with the child.

In Re Kamelia S.

AI Brief

CHARLES S. VOGEL, P.J.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief