In re T.W. CA2/5

Filed 5/19/14 In re T.W. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re T.W. et al., Persons Coming Under B248827 the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK26583)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LAKESHA R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rudolph A. Diaz, Judge. Dismissed. Orren & Orren and Tyna Thall Orren, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The legal guardian, Lakesha R., appeals from the juvenile court’s findings sustaining the Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 petition. She argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss the section 387 petition based on the lengthy delay in adjudication of the petition. We lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal because there was no dispositional order on the section 387 petition. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. On March 18, 2014, we asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing as to whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The parties agree the appeal may be dismissed on that ground. No dispositional order has been entered. Thus, we have no jurisdiction. (In re Javier G. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1201; In re Cody C. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1301, overruled on a different point in In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 537, fn. 5.) However, the legal guardian urges us to treat the appeal as an extraordinary writ petition. We have previously denied a meritless writ petition filed by the legal guardian. (Lakesha R. v Superior Court (Nov. 8, 2013, B251776) [nonpub. order].) The present appeal is equally meritless. It does not meet any criteria for treating an appeal as a writ petition. (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 744-747; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.4th 390, 401.) We decline to treat this appeal as a writ matter.