Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

141 Cal. App. 3d 397

190 Cal. Rptr. 153

Docket Docket No. 28197.

In Re Brian B.

In re BRIAN B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALERIE D., Defendant and Appellant.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 25, 1983.

California Court of Appeal · decided 1983-03-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“legislative recognition of the strong fundamental rights involved when the People [ sic ] separate a child from his parents”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 44 Cal. App. 4th 71 - In Re Benjamin E.

“no valid reason to accord a parent ... a lesser degree of review than is accorded a criminal defendant.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 39 Cal. App. 4th 1007 - In Re Angelica

Relies on 25 Cal. 3d 436 - People v. Wende · Morris v. Ursula H.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-03-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2007

24 state decisions

160198319902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*398 COUNSEL

¶2Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

¶3Edwin L. Miller, Jr., District Attorney, Peter G. Lehman and Edward J. Mantyla, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

¶4OPINION

¶5THE COURT.[*]

¶6Valerie D. appeals an order continuing her son as a dependent child of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) and ordering her to comply with a reunification plan to which she had consented.

¶7We appointed counsel for the mother on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case. He presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as is mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071].

¶8(1) The People argue Wende does not apply to a civil proceeding. Parents in dependent children proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 are entitled to the appointment of counsel (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317). That constitutes a legislative recognition of the strong fundamental rights involved when the People separate a child from his parents. We find no valid reason to accord a parent in that situation a lesser degree of review than is accorded a criminal defendant. While the court deciding In re Jessie H. (1981) 126 Cal. App.3d 1048 [178 Cal. Rptr. 205], did not address the specific issue here involved, the fact it dealt with a dependency proceeding by utilizing a *399Wende review implicitly recognizes the availability of that review by an appellate court.

¶9We granted appellant permission to file a brief on her own behalf. She has not responded. A review of the entire record has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. She consented to the order of the lower court. Appellant was competently represented by counsel below and on this appeal.

¶10Order affirmed.

NOTES

¶11[*] Before Brown (Gerald), P.J., Cologne, J., and Staniforth, J.

/141/calapp3d/397 · .json · Public domain