In re Tina V.
Filed 3/15/06 In re Tina V. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
| In re TINA V., et al., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B184243 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK50798) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff, v. MAX C., DAVID BROCKWAY, Defendant, Objector, and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Reversed.
David E. Brockway, Root, Brockway & Rothblatt, for Defendant, Objector, and Appellant.
No Appearance by Respondent.[1]
This appeal concerns an order imposing sanctions of $1,000 on counsel for one of the parties in a juvenile dependency action for failure to appear at two hearings scheduled in that action. The order imposing sanctions is defective, because the sanction imposed was not in compliance with any statute. We therefore reverse the sanction order.
BACKGROUND
Objector and Appellant David Brockway (appellant) was the attorney of record for the father, Max C. (father), in the underlying dependency action. Appellant initially appeared on behalf of father but subsequently assigned another lawyer from his law firm, Rebecca Elayach, to handle the case.
Neither appellant nor Ms. Elayach appeared, however, at a hearing that took place on November 22, 2004. At that hearing, the juvenile court instructed counsel for the mother to contact appellant and â€
