In re Jadon K.-I.
Filed 4/5/07 In re Jadon K.-I. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re JADON K.-I., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B192762 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK64200) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. E. I., Objector and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Emily A. Stevens, Judge. Dismissed.
Rich Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
_______________
E.I. (father) appeals the juvenile court's dismissal of the dependency petition without prejudice, contending that it should have been dismissed with prejudice. We conclude that father has no standing to appeal, and so dismiss the appeal.
A statement of the underlying facts of this case is not necessary to this review. At the adjudication hearing, the juvenile court concluded that the Department of Children and Family Services did not present sufficient evidence to sustain the Welfare and Institutions Code[1]section 300 petition filed with respect to father's five-year-old son, Jadon K.-I., and so dismissed the petition without prejudice. Father timely filed a notice of appeal.
California Rules of Court, rule 5.858, subdivision (b) provides that, "In proceedings under section 300, the petitioner, child, and the parent or guardian each has the right to appeal from any judgment, order, or decree specified in section 395." Section 395 states that "A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed from in the same manner as any final judgment, . . ." Code of Civil Procedure section 902, in turn, specifies that "[a]ny aggrieved party may appeal" an appealable judgment or order. Thus, father may appeal the judgment of dismissal entered by the juvenile court if he is an aggrieved party. He is not.
An aggrieved party, for purposes of standing to bring an appeal under Code of Civil Procedure section 902, must be a party of record "whose rights or interests are directly and injuriously affected by a judgment." (Garrison v. Board of Directors (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1670, 1676.) Father's rights or interests are not injuriously affected by the judgment of dismissal.
Father relies on In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763, to argue that a parent has standing to appeal the dismissal of a section 300 petition. In that case, the mother appealed the dismissal of the petition, seeking to reverse the juvenile court's order of dismissal. Said the court of appeal: "Any parent who takes the position that dependency jurisdiction is warranted is aggrieved by dismissal of the petition. Just as a parent must be permitted to present evidence and to argue in opposition to dismissal below, so such a parent must be allowed to appeal from a dismissal on the merits." (Id. at p. 770.) Here, father did not argue below in opposition to dismissal.
In short, the dismissal of the section 300 petition does not adversely affect father. He is therefore not aggrieved by it, and may not pursue an appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J.
We concur:
MOSK, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
[1]Further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise specified.
