Fear Not Law Articles: In re Trevor T.

In re Trevor T.

Filed 10/24/06 In re Trevor T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Butte)

In re TREVOR T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

BUTTE COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES DIVISION,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ROY T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C050976

(Super. Ct. No. J31017)

At a six-month review hearing held on September 14, 2005, the juvenile court denied the request of Roy T. (appellant) to terminate jurisdiction over his child Trevor T. (minor), or in the alternative, to place the minor in the father’s care. Appellant appeals from the orders of the juvenile court at the six-month hearing.

We dispense with a recitation of the underlying facts as they are unnecessary to disposition of the appeal. Appellant previously appealed from the jurisdictional order, claiming the order adjudging the minor a dependent of the juvenile court must be set aside because it was not supported by substantial evidence. We rejected appellant’s contention and affirmed the orders of the juvenile court. (In re Trevor T. (Oct. 20, 2006, C050001) [nonpub. opn.].)

Appellant’s present appeal raises the same issue that he raised in his appeal from the dispositional order. He merely incorporates by reference his arguments in the prior appeal.

At a six-month hearing, the juvenile court determines whether returning the minor to the parents would constitute a substantial risk to the minor, and may order whatever additional services the court deems necessary for reunification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21.) An attack on the jurisdictional findings raises an issue not present at the six-month review hearing. This challenge to the dispositional order must be raised in an appeal from that order. “An appeal from the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders, for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed.” (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563.)

Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidentiary support for the jurisdictional findings cannot be raised in this appeal because this issue was not before the juvenile court at the six-month hearing. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed as not cognizable on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

We concur:

SIMS , J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.

Description	At a six-month review hearing held on September 14, 2005, the juvenile court denied the request of appellant to terminate jurisdiction over his child, minor, or in the alternative, to place the minor in the father’s care. Appellant appeals from the orders of the juvenile court at the six-month hearing. Court dispensed with a recitation of the underlying facts as they are unnecessary to disposition of the appeal. Appellant previously appealed from the jurisdictional order, claiming the order adjudging the minor a dependent of the juvenile court must be set aside because it was not supported by substantial evidence. Court rejected appellant’s contention and affirmed the orders of the juvenile court. Appellant’s present appeal raises the same issue that he raised in his appeal from the dispositional order. Appellant merely incorporates by reference his arguments in the prior appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.