gno.law

L.People v. Super. Ct. CA1/2

California Court of Appeal · A140077 · 2013-12-19 · Unpublished

Area
civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 12/19/13 L.P. v. Super. Ct. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

L.P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEL A140077 NORTE COUNTY, (Del Norte Co. Super. Ct. Respondent, Nos. JVSQ12-6131 and JVSQ12-6132) DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al., Real Parties in Interest.

In his petition for extraordinary writ, L.P. seeks relief from the lower court’s setting of a hearing on February 7, 2014, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, to consider the termination of parental rights regarding L.P. and Y.R. Petitioner is the father of these children. He requests that we vacate the order for this hearing and order that reunification services be continued. On November 15, 2013, we issued an order to show cause why this petition should not be granted and denied petitioner’s request for a temporary stay of the February 7, 2014 hearing pending the outcome of this petition. No responses were submitted. Petitioner has not submitted a brief or other argument in support of his petition. Instead, his petition refers only to a “Wendy brief.” Apparently, this is a request that this court conduct a review of this matter pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

1 Petitioner is not entitled to a Wende review under the circumstances of this case, and we decline to conduct such a review. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 978-983; see also Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 535.) The petition is denied. This decision is final in this court immediately. (See Cal. rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(3).) _________________________ Brick, J.* We concur:

_________________________ Kline, P.J.

_________________________ Haerle, J.

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Cites, in this corpus