Opinion
C057554
8-5-2008
In re WILLIAM K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SHASTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD F., Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
This is the second appeal by the biological father, Ronald F. The first, in case No. C055107, was from the dispositional hearing and resulted in affirmance of the judgment of disposition in a published opinion. (In re William K. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1 [review denied June 11, 2008].) In this appeal from termination of parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395), appellant attempts to reassert the same issues which were raised, and disposed of, in the prior appeal. We affirm.
Due to the nature of the resolution in this case, an extensive factual recitation is unnecessary. It suffices to say that the minor was removed from parental custody and services were denied to appellant as a mere biological father at the dispositional hearing in March 2007. Services were terminated for the mother and presumed father in June 2007 and the court set a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the minor pursuant to section 366.26. Appellant was in custody at the time of the selection an implementation hearing. At the hearing, appellants counsel opposed the recommendation of termination of parental rights and submitted on the report, raising no other issues. The court adopted the social workers recommendation and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Appellant raises no issues relating to the selection and implementation hearing or termination of his parental rights. Instead, appellant reiterates the exact arguments and issues raised in his earlier appeal, i.e., the courts failure to set aside a voluntary declaration of paternity, appellants potential status as a presumed father under Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, and compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq.). The doctrine of law of the case compels affirmance.
The doctrine of "law of the case" deals with the effect of the first appellate decision on the subsequent appeal. The appellate decision stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case conclusively establishes the rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent appeal in the same case. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997 & 2007 supp.) Appeal, § 895; Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491-492.) The doctrine will be adhered to unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. (9 Witkin, supra, § 899.) No such circumstances exist here. The facts underlying the prior decision remain unchanged, appellant has not raised the issues again in the trial court and the laws governing the prior decision are untouched in any significant way.
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.
We concur:
MORRISON, Acting P.J.
BUTZ, J. --------------- Notes: Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.