Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HJ06003639
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND MODIFYING OPINION. NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
The Petition for Rehearing filed June 11, 2007 is denied. The opinion filed May 30, 2007 is modified as follows:
Section “C. Appellant Did Not Require A Guardian Ad Litem” on page 15 of the opinion is deleted in its entirety. The language shown below is inserted in its place:
C. Guardian Ad Litem
Appellant contends the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders must be reversed because she herself was a minor and the juvenile court failed to appoint a guardian ad litem for her. A minor “shall appear . . . by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in each case.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 372, subd. (a).) The failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor is not jurisdictional. (In re Charles T. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 869, 873; Pacific Coast Etc. Bank v. Clausen (1937) 8 Cal.2d 364, 366.) A party who does not make a timely objection in juvenile dependency proceedings to a non-jurisdictional issue has waived the issue on appeal. (In re Christopher B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 558; In re Charles T. supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 873 [“failure to appoint a guardian ad litem is not jurisdictional and is subject to waiver if not raised in the trial court”]) Even assuming the appointment of a guardian ad litem for minor parents is required in juvenile dependency proceedings, appellant waived the issue by failing to object below.
Moreover, appellant’s reliance on In re D.D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 646 is misplaced. In that case, a presumed father, who was a minor, appealed from an order terminating his reunification services. (Id. at p. 648.) He argued that the juvenile court erred by failing to appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem until the six-month review hearing. (Ibid.) The reviewing court vacated all findings and orders issued subsequent to the detention hearing, because the presumed father did not have either a guardian ad litem or counsel to represent him. (Id. at p. 654.) In contrast to D.D., here appellant was represented by counsel at every hearing. Thus, even if the guardian ad litem issue was not waived, appellant suffered no prejudice by it.
There is no change in the judgment.