Fear Not Law Articles: In re Charlie M.

In re Charlie M

In re Charlie M.

Filed 1/18/07 In re Charlie M. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re CHARLIE M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B189348

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. CK10343)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

K. R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Emily A. Stevens, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Frank J. DaVanzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

This is the sixth appeal by K.R. (mother) in a series of appeals involving mother's children--Charlie M. (Charlie), K.M., and Anthony M. (Anthony) (collectively the minors). Mother challenges the juvenile court's order giving the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) discretion to permit visitation with the minors when appropriate. According to mother, the order was an improper delegation of authority. But that order was issued on March 14, 2006, and mother only appealed the orders of February 7, 2006. As explained by Polster, Inc. v. Swing (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 427, 436 (Polster), â€

Description	This is the sixth appeal by mother in a series of appeals involving mother's children(collectively the minors). Mother challenges the juvenile court's order giving the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) discretion to permit visitation with the minors when appropriate. According to mother, the order was an improper delegation of authority. But that order was issued on March 14, 2006, and mother only appealed the orders of February 7, 2006. As explained by Polster, Inc. v. Swing (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 427, 436 (Polster), "[o]ur jurisdiction on appeal is limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the . . . order appealed from." Mother's briefs do not attack any of the orders entered on February 7, 2006. Consequently, any assignment of error has been waived, and court affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.