In re R.W. CA3

California Court of Appeal Jul 16, 2021 No. C092455AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant's sole challenge—the denial of a request for a contested section 366.26 hearing—was directed at a prior, independently appealable order for which the time to appeal had expired.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court's denial of a request for a contested section 366.26 hearing is cognizable in an appeal from a subsequent order terminating parental rights.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the sole issue raised by mother is not cognizable in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal.”

“An appeal from the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed.”

“Mother’s August 11, 2020 notice of appeal from the August 7, 2020 juvenile court orders is not effective as to the juvenile court’s earlier orders, which were independently appealable.”

Filed 7/16/21 In re R.W. CA3 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

In re R.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C092455 Court Law.

YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. JVSQ18507, SERVICES AGENCY, JVSQ18501, JVSQ19019)

Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION ON REHEARING

T.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant T.P., mother of the minors (mother), appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 She contends the juvenile court erred when it denied her request for a contested section 366.26 hearing so she could present evidence that the beneficial

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

parental relationship exception to adoption applied. Because the sole issue raised by mother is not cognizable in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal.2 BACKGROUND We dispense with a detailed factual and procedural background as it is unnecessary to our resolution of this appeal. The three young minors in this case were adjudicated dependent children of the court, removed from parental custody, and placed together in a foster home. Minors R. and J. were detained from mother’s custody on October 1, 2018, when they were three and one years of age, respectively. Minor A. was subsequently born and detained immediately after her birth in January 2019. Mother failed to reunify with the minors and her reunification services were terminated on November 14, 2019. A section 366.26 hearing was set for March 5, 2020. On March 3, 2020, mother filed a section 388 petition for modification requesting further reunification services, alleging she had continued in counseling and had obtained a job. The petition also alleged the request was in the minors’ best interests because they have “a strong relationship with their mother, and deserve to know their immediate and extended maternal family.” At the March 5, 2020 section 366.26 hearing, mother asked for a hearing on her section 388 petition for modification and requested the court set the section 366.26 for a

In re R.W. CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief