In re Abdul K. CA1/4

Filed 12/16/20 In re Abdul K. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re ABDUL K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, A159758 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. D02769709) N.M., Defendant and Appellant.

Abdul K. is a medically fragile dependent child who did not receive adequate care in his parents’ home. In December 2019, this court denied a petition for an extraordinary writ filed by Abdul’s mother, N.M. (mother), which challenged an order setting this case for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26.1 (N.M. v. Superior Court (Dec. 5, 2019, A158385) [nonpub. opn.].) Subsequently, mother appealed the juvenile court’s denial of her trial counsel’s petition for

Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Welfare & 1

Institutions Code.

1

an order returning Abdul to mother’s care based on changed circumstances. (§ 388.) This court affirmed the denial of that petition in August 2020. (In re Abdul K. (Aug. 18, 2020, A159443) [nonpub. opn.].) In the present appeal, mother challenges two rulings the juvenile court made in February 2020, during Abdul’s section 366.26 hearing. Mother contends the juvenile court committed prejudicial errors by (1) denying her request for a bonding study and (2) excluding testimony from two of Abdul’s siblings. Mother filed her notice of appeal while the section 366.26 hearing was in progress, purporting to base her appeal on a juvenile court minute order issued the day the allegedly objectional rulings were made. In their appellate briefs, the parties fail to address the threshold issue of appealability, so this court requested supplemental briefs on the matter. (See Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126 [appellate court must raise jurisdictional issue on its own initiative].) Both parties take the position that mother is challenging appealable post-judgment orders. We reject this contention. The juvenile court’s evidentiary rulings are not directly appealable. Therefore, we dismiss the present appeal. DISCUSSION “Because the right to appeal is strictly statutory, a judgment or order is not appealable unless a statute expressly makes it appealable.” (In re Michael H. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1373 (Michael H.).) Dependency appeals are governed by section 395, which provides in pertinent part: “A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment.” “Under section 300, a dispositional order is a judgment.” (In re Keisha T. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 220, 229; see § 360 [entry of “judgment” follows consideration of “the evidence on the proper disposition