From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Lidia

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two.
Nov 25, 2003
No. B166659 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2003)

Opinion

B166659.

11-25-2003

In re LIDIA R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL R., Defendant and Appellant.

Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, Frank J. DaVanzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


In this dependency matter (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300), Daniel R., the father, purports to appeal from the courts finding at the first six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)). The father complains of the findings that he was in substantial compliance with the case plan, and that he had been provided reasonable reunification services.

The father was incarcerated in prison for robbery and scheduled to be released in August of 2004. He had written to the children (then approximately ages five and seven) and inquired of their welfare through the social worker. While in prison, the father had attended a substance abuse program and group sessions regarding drug rehabilitation, relapse prevention, anger management and communication skills. He also was in a parenting class, dropped out of the class, but re-enrolled.

At the hearing on April 23, 2003, the court found that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) had "offered reasonable services," although it "could have done better, but it sounds like there was a communication problem between the social worker and the father." The court also found that the father was in "substantial compliance" with the case plan, and directed six more months of reunification services. The father, however, contends that he did not receive adequate visitation and reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (e)) through DCFS.

The problem with the present appeal, is that the April 23, 2003, "findings" complained of are not appealable. As provided in section 395, "A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed from in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment . . . ." A parent thus can appeal a judgment or an order, but there is no authority for appealing a mere finding.

In the event the juvenile court orders the fathers reunification services terminated, for example, such an order may be appealed. The father would then become an aggrieved party by such an adverse order (see County of Alameda v. Carlson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 737), and could appeal from the order.

As the father acknowledges, the various findings the juvenile court must make throughout the dependency process "are too numerous to set forth." These myriad of mere findings articulated by the court are not appealable; only the courts actions by way or an order of judgment are appealable.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.

Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.


Summaries of

In re Lidia

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two.
Nov 25, 2003
No. B166659 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2003)
Case details for

In re Lidia

Case Details

Full title:In re LIDIA R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two.

Date published: Nov 25, 2003

Citations

No. B166659 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2003)