In re J.G.
Filed 12/12/11 In re J.G. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASMINE G., Defendant and Appellant. | A131841 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HJ11016655) |
On March 28, 2011, respondent Alameda County Social Services Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)[1] (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support), alleging that appellant Jasmine G. (mother) had mental health problems that impeded her ability to care for her infant daughter, J.G. At a hearing on March 29, the juvenile court appointed counsel for mother (who was hospitalized on a section 5150 hold), and ordered the minor detained. At a hearing on April 12, mother was questioned about the identity of the minor’s father, and about whether she had Indian ancestry. The juvenile court then scheduled a contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing for May 3.
Mother, apparently acting without her attorney’s assistance, filed a notice of appeal on April 25, purporting to appeal from the court’s findings and orders issued at the March 29 and April 12 hearings. Her appointed appellate counsel has filed a no issues statement in accordance with In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, stating that he has reviewed the record and concluded that there are no arguable issues to be raised on appeal. Counsel also has informed mother that she may file a letter setting forth issues that should be reviewed on appeal. This court also provided mother an opportunity to send a letter informing the court of any issues she felt should be raised. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 [appellate court has discretion to permit parent to personally file brief, and must do so only upon a showing of good cause that an arguable issue in fact exists].)
The dispositional order is the first appealable order in a dependency proceeding (§ 395; In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150); however, no dispositional order had been entered at the time mother filed her notice of appeal, as the scheduled jurisdictional/dispositional hearing had not yet been held. The detention order is not directly appealable, and may be challenged only in an appeal from the dispositional order. (Cal. Juvenile Dependency Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar, 2011) § 10.2, pp. 807-808.) As a practical matter, the orders mother purports to appeal from may have been rendered moot by any subsequent orders entered at the scheduled jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. (Ibid.; cf. In re Raymond G. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 964, 967 [reviewing issues from detention hearing on appeal despite mootness because issues were capable of repetition yet evading review].)
Assuming that this court has the discretion to treat mother’s purported appeal from nonappealable orders as a petition for a writ of mandate, we decline to do so, because mother identifies no unusual circumstances that would support the exercise of such discretion. (H. D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1366-1367.) Indeed, as set forth above, mother’s counsel has concluded that there are no arguable issues. Where no claim of error is raised in an appeal from an order in a dependency proceeding, we need not proceed to the merits of the court’s order (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994), and this is especially true where no reason is given why this court should review nonappealable orders.[2]
Mother’s appeal is dismissed.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P. J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2] This court has received various letters and documents from mother during the pendency of this appeal. None provides any reasoned argument regarding any claim of reversible error or other defect in the juvenile court proceedings. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)