In re Cherry W.
Filed 2/6/07 In re Cherry W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 CHERRY W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B192938 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BK02349) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT W., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Commissioner. Dismissed by opinion.
Lisa M. Bassis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Appellant Robert W. (father) appeals the denial of his motion to disqualify the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Under In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, we dismiss the appeals.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In this 16-year-old dependency case, father appeared at a review hearing on July 17, 2006, during which his visits with his daughter were reinstated. When father stated that he did not understand what was happening, the trial court explained that the visits had previously been suspended due to father's contact with the court appointed special advocate in violation of a court order. When father persisted that he still did not understand, the court instructed him to consult with his attorney, who was present.
On the same day as the hearing, father filed an affidavit of prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The court did not address the peremptory challenge at the hearing, but the minute order for the hearing indicates that it was denied as untimely.
On July 31, 2006, father filed two notices of appeal: One from the denial of his peremptory challenge and the other from the purported denial of his right to participate in the July 17, 2006 hearing.
On October 24, 2006, father's appointed appellate counsel advised this court in writing that after reviewing the record and researching potential issues, she was unable to file an opening brief on the merits on appellant's behalf. On October 26, 2006, we notified father that he had 30 days in which to submit by letter or brief any arguments or contentions he wished this court to consider. On November 27, 2006, father filed a letter identifying numerous notices of appeal he had filed in 2006 and he attached copies of these notices.
DISCUSSION
â€
