In re Deonte S.
Filed 6/20/06 In re Deonte S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 DEONTE S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B189024 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK57167) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WHITNEY R., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven Berman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.). Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., Los Angeles County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Frank J. Da Vanzo, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Whitney R., the mother, appeals from a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 parental termination rights order. She contends all of the orders in this case must be reversed because of non-compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Rights Act. We agree that only the parental termination rights order must be reversed.
First, as to all pre-parental termination rights determinations including the adjudication and dispositional orders, we have no jurisdiction to consider the mother's Indian Child Welfare Rights Act contentions. No appeal was taken from the dispositional order. Issues relating to prior non-appealed final orders are res judicata and may not be raised in a subsequent appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 906; In re Matthew C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 386, 393; Wanda B. v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1395; In re Cicely L. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1705; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563.) Further, the notice of appeal in this case is solely from the February 9, 2006 parental termination rights order. No other order is mentioned in the notice of appeal. We have no jurisdiction over orders not mentioned in the notice of appeal. (Glassco v. El Sereno Country Club, Inc. (1932) 217 Cal. 90, 91-92; DeZerega v. Meggs (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 28, 43; Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 624-625; Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 35, 47; Eskaton Monterey Hospital v. Myers (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 788, 790; Estate of McManus (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 390, 393.) Hence, all of the pre-parental termination rights orders are now final and not subject to appellate review.
Second, the parties agree there was noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Rights Act. We concur in their assessment in this regard. Further, the parties agree the February 9, 2006 parental termination rights order must be reversed and remanded to permit compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Rights Act. It is not entirely clear the parties have stipulated to a reversal but out of an abundance of caution we will insure that there is full compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). Our ability to accept what is tantamount to a stipulation to reverse is controlled by our prior decision in the case of In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379-382. The present case involves reversible error, the failure to give notice to the tribe as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 736-740; In re Desiree F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 460, 471-472; In re Kahlen W. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1414, 1421-1422; In re Junious M. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 786, 790-791.) Because the parental termination rights order would be reversed under any circumstances, a stipulated reversal advances those interests identified in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) for the reasons we explained in the case of In re Rashad H., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pages 379-382. (See Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329-1330.)
The Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 order is reversed and the cause is remanded for compliance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act requirements. All other orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Apartment Manager Lawyers.
