In re S.W.

Filed 3/6/06 In re S.W. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer)

----

Teri J., mother of the minor, appeals from orders continuing hearings on a supplemental petition and on her petition for modification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 387, 388, 395.)^[1] Appellant raises no contentions related to these orders, focusing instead on what appear to be subsequent matters. We affirm.

Facts

We need not recite the underlying facts of the dependency due to the limited issue before us.

The minor was adjudged a dependent in April 2004 and placed in foster care. In August 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) to move the minor to a higher level of care. On December 13, 2004, the court accepted the parties' stipulation to continue a pretrial conference for the contested hearing on the section 387 petition.

On January 12, 2005, the court again continued the contested hearing on the section 387 petition and ordered the mother to be provided a transcript of the January 12 hearing. The minute order for the hearing reflects certain facts relating to the transfer of appellant's file between two of her attorneys.

On February 10, 2005, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the December 13, 2004, and January 12, 2005, orders.

On February 15, 2005, appellant filed a petition for modification in open court. The petition sought to vacate jurisdiction, to prohibit county counsel from appearing in the case and to transfer the case to another county to avoid undue influence. The petition was based, in part, upon facts recounted in the minute order of January 12, 2005. The court ordered transcripts from the hearings of December 13, 2004, and January 12, 2005. The court continued the hearing for a ruling on whether the case would go forward or whether other options sought in the section 388 petition were appropriate.

At the hearing for a ruling on March 13, 2005, appellant objected to the court considering a late-filed declaration from county counsel. The court overruled the objection, noting it would need all available information to make a decision in the case. The court ordered the matter continued so that appellant could review the late-filed declaration and amend her petition for modification if she chose.

Appellant promptly filed a notice of appeal from these two orders.

Discussion

In her opening brief, appellant raises various issues related to the final ruling on her petition for modification which occurred subsequent to filing the notices of appeal. As to these issues, this appeal is premature and subject to dismissal. (In re Ricky H. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 552, 558-559.)

Appellant raises no claims of error as to any of the four orders from which appeals were taken. To the extent that appellant's brief deals with facts reflected in the January 12, 2005, minute order, she fails to demonstrate any adverse connection between those alleged facts and the orders made by the court on that date. Error is not presumed on appeal, indeed the order of the trial court is presumed correct. (People v. Farrara (1956) 46 Cal.2d 265, 268; Winick Corp v. County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1170, 1176.) Appellant has failed to sustain her burden to show error.

Disposition

The orders appealed from are affirmed.

DAVIS , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P.J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego Criminal Law Attorney (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And San Diego Lawyers Directory (http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )

^[1] Further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.