Cabell v. Frances S.

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J. The mother of a minor appeals from orders of the superior court, declaring her son to be a ward of the juvenile court and placing him in a camp program. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the orders.

I

We deal, first, with a procedural matter. The record on appeal treats the case as an appeal from an order of Referee Garfinkle; the People’s brief treats it as an appeal from an order of Benjamin Louie, acting as a temporary judge, and from an order of Referee Garfinkle. We regard the appeal as being from the order of Judge Giannini denying a rehearing of Referee Garfinkle’s dispositional order. This appeal, however, brings before us the jurisdictional order of Temporary Judge Louie.

As originally enacted, section 702 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, referred to the determination that a minor was a person described in sections 600, 601 or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code as a “judgment.” That language led to the opinion that the jurisdictional determination was immediately appealable as a final judgment and that the dispositional order was appealable, under section 800 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as an order after judgment. (See the discussion of that matter in Judicial Council of Cal., 19th Biennial Rep. (1963) pp. 85-86.) In 1963, section 702 was amended to substitute the term “order” for the former term “judgment.” We conclude that that amendment was intended to, and did, effect the recommendation of the Judicial Council that only the dispositional order to be appealable and that the jurisdictional order be subject to review on that one appeal.

[901]Since, section 800 of the Welfare and Institutions Code allows an appeal from an order of a referee only from those orders that are “effective without approval of a judge,” and an order removing a juvenile from his home is one requiring the approval of a judge (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 555), it follows that the only appealable order before us is that of Judge Giannini.

II

Appellant’s counsel argues: (1) the evidence at the jurisdictional hearing was insufficient to support the order of wardship; and (2) the mother was denied due process because a transcript of the jurisdictional hearing was not before the superior court judge when he ruled on the petition for rehearing.