In re G.A.

Full title: SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Dec 24, 2007

No. C056275 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2007)

Opinion

In re G.A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.A., Defendant and Appellant. No. C056275 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento December 24, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. Nos. JD223904 JD223905

MORRISON, J.

Appellant, the father of the minors, appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)¹ The sole basis for appellant’s claim of error is that there was insufficient evidence for the juvenile court to take jurisdiction in the present case and, therefore, it did not have jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights. Because we have since determined that the juvenile court properly assumed jurisdiction over the minors, we shall affirm.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Appellant initially appealed in case No. C053317, challenging the jurisdiction and dispositional orders on the grounds that the petition failed to state facts to state a basis for jurisdiction and that the evidence was insufficient to support jurisdiction and removal. At the time the parties briefed the instant appeal (case No. C056275), this court had not yet issued a decision in case No. C053317. Since then, on November 8, 2007, this court issued the opinion in case No. C053317, affirming the juvenile court’s orders. We take judicial notice of our opinion and the record in case No. C053317. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.)²

2 Parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity, before a cause is submitted for decision, to present information relevant to: (1) the propriety of taking notice of matters not previously noticed; and (2) the tenor of the matters to be noticed. (Evid. Code, §§ 455, subd. (a), 459, subd. (c).) However, in the interest of judicial economy, and because there appears to be no dispute as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor thereof, we take notice of our records in case No. C053317 without having provided the parties with that opportunity in advance, subject to any party's right to petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)

As set forth in our opinion in case No. C053317, the section 300 petitions contained the required essential factual allegations to state a basis for jurisdiction and to provide appellant adequate notice of the specific facts upon which the petitions were based. There was also substantial evidence to support jurisdiction and removal.

Thus, for the reasons set forth in our opinion in case No. C053317, we reject appellant’s claim in this appeal that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to terminate his parental rights.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SCOTLAND , P.J., BUTZ , J.