In re Jasmine

Full title: ELIZABETH S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Dec 17, 2007

No. B201628 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2007)

Opinion

In re JASMINE S., a Minor. ELIZABETH S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest. B201628 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division December 17, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate No. CK61779, Emily A. Stevens, Judge.

Law Offices of Alex Iglesias, Steven D. Shenfeld and Angela Swan for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Senior Associate County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles and Kristin Lewis for Real Party in Interest Jasmine S.

WOODS, J.

Petitioner Elizabeth S. is the mother of Jasmine S., a child who has been declared a dependent of the juvenile court. In the instant proceeding, Elizabeth S. seeks extraordinary writ relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l);¹ Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order denying her section 388 petition requesting that Jasmine be placed in the home of a maternal aunt. (§ 361.3.) This order was made during the 18-month review hearing (§ 366.22) at which time the court entered an order setting a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.² Elizabeth S. claims the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her request for placement of Jasmine with the maternal aunt.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Although it is not an order “that a hearing pursuant to this section be held” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1)), the juvenile court’s order on Elizabeth S.’s section 388 petition is subject to section 366.26, subdivision (l) and rule 8.452, California Rules of Court. (In re Anthony B. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022-1024.)

We conclude Elizabeth S. lacks standing to seek appellate review of the order denying relative placement, because her interests are not prejudiced by the order. Elizabeth S.’s interest in the dependency proceeding is to reunify with Jasmine. The juvenile court’s decision not to place Jasmine with the maternal aunt, made contemporaneously with its order terminating reunification services for Elizabeth S., does not adversely affect that interest. (Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1035.) Elizabeth S. does not show, or even allege, more than a nominal interest in the consequence of the juvenile court’s denial of her section 388 petition. Any prejudicial effect on Elizabeth S.’s interest is thus merely speculative. (See In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1000.) “To be aggrieved, party must have a legally cognizable immediate and substantial interest which is injuriously affected by the court’s decision. A nominal interest or remote consequence of the ruling does not satisfy this requirement.” (In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 734.) The only interest affected by the order Elizabeth S. attempts to challenge at this point in the proceedings is the maternal aunt’s interest in having Jasmine placed with her. (Cesar V. v. Superior Court, supra, at pp. 1034-1035; In re Gary P. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 875, 876-877.) “An appellant cannot urge errors which affect only another party who does not appeal.” (In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261.) Because Elizabeth S. is not aggrieved by the order she challenges, this court is without jurisdiction to consider her claim.

DISPOSITION

The petition is dismissed.

We concur: PERLUSS, P.J. ZELON, J.