Opinion
Page 593c
226 Cal.App.4th 593c __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ In re FELICITY S., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELIZABETH V., Defendant and Appellant. A137439. California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division May 23, 2014THE COURT:
IT IS ORDERED, upon review of the application by the amicus curiae First District Appellate Project for an order modifying the published opinion filed on May 1, 2014, 225 Cal.App.4th 1389; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, we hereby order that the published opinion be modified as follows:
The caption [225 Cal.App.4th 1389, advance report, long case name segment] should be modified to delete In re S. Lynne Klein on PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT. The caption should now read In re FELICITY S., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
In the last partial sentence in the last partial paragraph on page 14 and the first partial sentence on the first partial paragraph on page 15 [225 Cal.App.4th 1402, advance report, last partial par., line 11], the words “within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 5.661(f)” are to be added after “best interests.” The sentence now reads: FDAP’s recommendation should explain why, despite the absence of a recommendation from the trial counsel or guardian ad litem it is nonetheless in minor’s best interests within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 5.661(f) for appellate counsel to be appointed.
In the first full sentence in the first partial paragraph on page 15 [225 Cal.App.4th 1403, advance report, 1st partial par., line 3], the phrase “within the meaning of rule 5.661(f)” is to be added to the end of the sentence. The sentence now reads: A second, related lesson to be drawn is that when FDAP is approached by a party after briefing has otherwise been completed and when a hearing to consider termination of parental rights under section 366.26 is imminent, in making its recommendation FDAP should take into account whether further delay while new appellate counsel becomes familiar with the case is truly in the minor’s best interests within the meaning of rule 5.661(f).
In the last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 15 [225 Cal.App.4th 1403, advance report. 1st full par., lines 8-9], "implicit” is deleted and “
Page 593d
conferring with the minor’s trial counsel, reviewing briefs already filed in the appeal, examining available key documents or transcript excerpts, assessing the status of the appeal and any delays the appointment could cause, and considering any recommendation made by trial counsel or any other party” is added to the end of the sentence. The sentence now reads: However when the court makes such a discretionary appointment, it is based upon FDAP’s representation that doing so is in the best interests of the child based on its conferring with the minor’s trial counsel, reviewing briefs already filed in the appeal, examining available key documents or transcript excerpts, assessing the status of the appeal and any delays the appointment could cause, and considering any recommendation made by trial counsel or any other party.
In the second sentence of the first paragraph on page 5 [225 Cal.App.4th 1402, advance report, 1st partial par., lines 1-2], "S. Lynne Klein as minor’s counsel on appeal” is deleted and replaced with “appellate counsel for minor.” The sentence now reads: We granted that request on August 22, 2013, and appointed appellate counsel for minor and, because prompt resolution of these issues was critical to Felicity’s well being, set a 10-day deadline for counsel to file her brief on appeal. [fn.]
On pages 5 through 13, 15 through 16, and 20 through 25 [225 Cal.App.4th 1395-1401, 1403-1404, 1407-1411, advance report, throughout], delete the words “Ms. Klein” and replace them with “minor’s appellate counsel.”
There is no change in the judgment.