Opinion
E033224.
11-4-2003
In re ANGELA S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL S., Defendant and Appellant.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minor.
Michael S. (Father), the father of Angela S., who is three years old, appeals from an order denying his petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 388.
All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated.
On August 4, 2000, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) filed a petition on behalf of Angela pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), alleging both parents failure to care and protect.
On November 28, 2000, Father submitted on the jurisdictional reports. The court sustained the petition and ordered reunification services for Father.
Eventually, Angela was returned to her mothers custody. On March 29, 2001, DPSS submitted an ex parte request to terminate jurisdiction. Without a hearing the court terminated jurisdiction and ordered no contact between Father and Angela. That prompted Fathers first appeal in the case. On December 27, 2001, we reversed the order in case number E029589 and remanded for a hearing regarding termination of jurisdiction.
On May 10, 2002 DPSS filed a section 388 petition again requesting termination of the dependency with a family law order granting custody to mother and visitation to Father. On July 18, 2002, Father stipulated to termination of the dependency after the filing of a family law order giving legal and physical custody to mother and visitation to him.
Later father sought to rescind his agreement. On August 18, 2002, the court denied his motion to set aside his stipulation, made family law exit orders and dismissed the dependency. Father again appealed. Fathers counsel filed a brief under authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952. On March 13, 2003, this court affirmed after conducting a review of the entire record. (Case No. E032341.)
In the meantime, on December 26, 2002, Father, in pro se, filed a petition pursuant to section 388, seeking to overturn all orders of the juvenile court from detention forward and to obtain relief from the stipulated agreement based on an alleged improper relationship between the judge who had presided over the case and counsel for DPSS. The hearing on the petition was heard on February 13, 2003. The court denied the petition on the grounds that father had knowingly entered into the stipulation and that he had not shown good cause to reopen the dependency. The court indicated that juvenile court was no longer involved and the case was a family law matter now.
Father now appeals from the order denying his section 388 petition. At his request we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of facts and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the entire record.
We afforded Father an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief which he has done. We have read and considered his brief.
Father requests in his brief that we dismiss his attorney and substitute another attorney "from `outside the Riverside system . . . ." That motion is denied.
We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli J. and Gaut J.