legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Esperanza M.

In re Esperanza M.
02:20:2007

In re Esperanza M


In re Esperanza M.


Filed 1/16/07  In re Esperanza M. CA4/3


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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


FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


DIVISION THREE










In re ESPERANZA M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY,


      Plaintiff and Respondent,


            v.


ALEJANDRO M.,


      Defendant and Appellant.



         G037173


         (Super. Ct. No. DP010886)


         O P I N I O N


                        Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge.  Affirmed.


                        Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Alejandro M.


                        Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits, Senior Deputy County Counsel, and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.


*          *          *


                        Alejandro M. (father), the presumed father of one-year-old Esperanza M., appeals from termination of his parental rights at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing.[1]  Father contends error occurred at the earlier 12-month review hearing, when the court terminated reunification services and referred the case to the .26 hearing.  He also argues his counsel at the 12-month review hearing was ineffective. 


                        Ordinarily, a party who does not file a writ petition from the orders at the referral hearing is barred from raising those issues on appeal.  (§  366.26, subd. (l)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452, 5.600(b).)[2]  But father asserts that at the 12-month review hearing, when the matter was referred to a .26 hearing, the court failed to advise him adequately of his extraordinary writ petition remedy (§  366.26, subd. (l)(3)(A)), thus all issues have been preserved for appeal (rules 5.585(e) & 5.600(b).)  Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) concedes the point (see In re Merrick V. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 235, 248 [â€





Description Father, the presumed father of one year old appeals from termination of his parental rights at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 permanency hearing. Father contends error occurred at the earlier 12-month review hearing, when the court terminated reunification services and referred the case to the .26 hearing. He also argues his counsel at the 12-month review hearing was ineffective.
The order is affirmed.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale