From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re C.V.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 2, 2012
No. E054009 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)

Opinion

E054009 Super.Ct.No. J236357

02-02-2012

In re C.V. on Habeas Corpus.

Esther K. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus and/or mandate. Petition granted.

Esther K. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by the Attorney General, and petitioner's reply. We have determined that the petition is more appropriately treated as one for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to perform a clear duty. We have also determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)

DISCUSSION

Although it is true that the "Advisory Committee Comment" to California Rules of Court, rule 5.651, suggests that the focus of the rule is on foster children and/or children with disabilities, the language of rule 5.651(a)(1) unambiguously applies to all children who are the subject of petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300, 601, or 602. It is undisputed that petitioner was the subject of such a petition. Accordingly, the trial court was required to comply with rule 5.651(a)(1) and, specifically, to complete Judicial Council Forms, form JV-535.

As the language of the rule is explicit and not subject to dispute, we need not consider petitioner's federal due process claims.

We are aware that, due to inadvertent delays in the processing of this petition, the petition may have become moot either because the minor is no longer on probation or because she has reached her 18th birthday. However, for the future guidance of the court, we will grant the petition.

DISPOSITION

The petition is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to follow the procedures required by California Rules of Court, rule 5.651, unless it determines that it would be inappropriate to do so because it no longer has jurisdiction over the minor.

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.

This order shall be final forthwith.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

Acting P.J.
We concur:

HOLLENHORST

J.

RICHLI

J.


Summaries of

In re C.V.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Feb 2, 2012
No. E054009 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)
Case details for

In re C.V.

Case Details

Full title:In re C.V. on Habeas Corpus.

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Feb 2, 2012

Citations

No. E054009 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)