gno.law

Morris v. Ursula H.

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 50160 · 1981-10-21 · Published · 126 Cal. App. 3d 1048 · 178 Cal. Rptr. 205 · 1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2496

In re JESSE H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. WALTER MORRIS, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., and v. URSULA H., and

Area
dependency
Panel
Betty B. Deal, William P. Barry

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 — Barrydeal

Opinion BARRY-DEAL, J.

Ursula H. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court adjudging her minor son, Jesse H., a dependent child of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, removing the minor from appellant’s custody, and approving placement of the minor in a foster home.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief in which he set forth the facts of the case. He did not argue against his client, but advised the court he found no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. We have examined the record and have found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071].) Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in her own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from appellant.

*1050Judgment is affirmed.

Scott, Acting P. J., and Anello, J.,* concurred.

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by