Brian B., In re
| Decision Date | 25 March 1983 |
| Citation | 190 Cal.Rptr. 153,141 Cal.App.3d 397 |
| Parties | In re BRIAN B., a Minor. SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. VALERIE D., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 28197. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Christopher Blake, San Diego, for objectors and appellants.
Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., Peter G. Lehman and Edward J. Mantyla, Deputy Dist. Attys., for petitioner and respondent.
Before GERALD BROWN, P.J., and COLOGNE and STANIFORTH, JJ.
Valerie 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.
We 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, 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.
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., 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 Wende review implicitly recognizes the availability of that review by an appellate court.
We 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.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kayla G., In re
...criminal defendants under Wende. (In re Joyleaf W. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 865, 868-869, 198 Cal.Rptr. 114; In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 398, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153.) Recently, other courts have refused to follow this procedure and the issue is currently pending before the California ......
-
Andrew B., In re
... ... (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071; In re Joyleaf W. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 865, 198 Cal.Rptr. 114; In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153; In re Jesse H. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 1048, 178 Cal.Rptr. 205.) ... Pursuant to an invitation by this court, Herbert filed a brief in his own behalf. He raised no issue that could be cognizable on an appeal from a judgment ... ...
-
Sade C., In re
...the per curiam opinion of Division One of the Fourth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal in In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153 (hereafter sometimes Brian B.), overruled by that same court in In re Angelica V., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at page 1012, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d......
-
People v. Hackett, A067229
... ... 772), to a conservatorship proceeding (Conservatorship of Besoyan (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 34, 38, 226 Cal.Rptr. 196), to a termination of parental rights proceeding (In re Joyleaf W. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 865, 868-869, 198 Cal.Rptr. 114), to dependency proceedings (In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 398-399, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153), and even to paternity actions (County of Madera v. Jacobson (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 569, 573, 239 Cal.Rptr. 602) ... However, during the same period there were also decisions declining to expand Wende. For example, ... ...