In re K.F. CA3

California Court of Appeal Jan 3, 2023 No. C096493Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a parent is barred from challenging jurisdictional and dispositional orders on appeal from a subsequent order terminating parental rights if the parent failed to timely appeal those earlier orders or seek writ review.

Issues

Whether a parent may challenge jurisdictional and dispositional findings on appeal from a section 366.26 order after failing to timely appeal the earlier orders.
Whether the waiver rule applies to bar the father's claims regarding the juvenile court's failure to place the minor with him at the dispositional hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A consequence of section 395 is that an unappealed disposition or postdisposition order is final and binding and may not be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable order.”

“We conclude father’s claims are barred by the waiver rule and he may not belatedly raise issues relating to the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings on this appeal from the section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.”

Filed 1/3/23 In re K.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C096493 Law.

YOLO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. No. JV2019365) SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

R.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant R.M. (father), the father of the minor K.F., appeals from the May 2022 order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Appellant asks this court to consider issues relating to the May 2020

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

jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, as well as the December 2020 status review hearing at which the section 366.26 hearing was set. We conclude appellant may not raise issues going back to those hearings. We affirm. BACKGROUND I Initial Dependency Proceedings At the time of the minor’s birth in November 2019, the Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) received a report that the mother, M.F. (mother), tested positive for methamphetamine, marijuana, and an untreated communicable disease. The minor was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and had to be placed on a feeding tube. Mother disclosed that she had used methamphetamine during her pregnancy, with the last use occurring two or three days prior to the minor’s preterm birth. Mother also reported a substance abuse history dating back to 2015. On December 2, 2019, the Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that the minor came within section 300, subdivision (b), due to prenatal exposure to methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as mother’s lack of prenatal care and history of substance abuse. The petition further alleged that the minor was at risk of abuse under section 300, subdivision (j), due to the January 2015 removal of the minor’s sibling, due to prenatal drug exposure and mother’s subsequent failure to engage in family reunification services. On December 3, 2019, the juvenile court detained the minor from the care of mother, and father was named an alleged father. II Jurisdiction and Disposition On January 8, 2020, the juvenile court held the initial jurisdiction hearing. The court ordered paternity testing for two alleged fathers and continued the matter for a combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

In re K.F. CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief