Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 52-002687
Appellant, the mother of Gregory B., the minor, appeals from an order of the juvenile court in the minor’s dependency case requiring the minor to have no contact with appellant.
NICHOLSON, J.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ; In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [Wende applies to a juvenile’s appeal from delinquency proceedings].)
Having taken an examination of the entire record, we shall dismiss the appeal. “Normally only parties of record to the proceeding below may appeal.” (People v. United Bonding Ins. Co. (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 441, 442; People v. Arthur Murray, Inc. (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 333, 338; Code Civ. Proc., § 902.) Although she has a right to notice and to be present at her son’s delinquency proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 656, 658, 659), appellant is not a party to the action who has a right to appeal. Her appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Even if she were a party to the appeal, we would dismiss the appeal as untimely. Defendant appeals the juvenile court’s order of March 10, 2006, when the court continued its no contact order and issued dispositional orders for the minor’s violation of probation. She filed her notice of appeal on April 19, 2006, well beyond the time limit for the filing notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a).)
Because the time for filing an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, we must dismiss the appeal upon our finding that appellant failed to file notice within the required period. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b); ECC Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Assn. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Moreover, except under circumstances not here relevant (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.66 specifying types of public calamities), “no court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. If the notice of appeal is filed late, the reviewing court must dismiss the appeal.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b).)
In her notice of appeal, appellant states, “I was active duty military at the time of the order and was not given notice of the hearing.” The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C.A. Appen. § 521), allows an active duty service member to set aside a default judgment if the member’s defense to the action was “materially affected” by his or her service, and the service member “has a meritorious or legal defense to the action or some part of it.” (50 U.S.C.A. Appen. § 521(g)(1)(A) & (B).) Cases construing the act “have required a showing by the party engaged in military service that he or she is actually unavailable to participate and that his or her rights would be adversely affected by virtue of absence from trial” and that “‘mere contentions of unavailability’” are not enough to warrant relief under the act. (Christine M. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1244.)
Since appellant’s bare assertion of active duty military service is insufficient to warrant relief under the act, her appeal is untimely and must therefore be dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P.J., ROBIE, J.