Jesse H., In re
| Decision Date | 21 October 1981 |
| Citation | 126 Cal.App.3d 1048,178 Cal.Rptr. 205 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re JESSE H., a Minor. Walter MORRIS, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. URSULA H., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 50160. |
Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Ezra Hendon, and Mark Fogelman, Deputy State Public Defenders, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant (by Court Appointment).
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
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.
Judgment is affirmed.
* Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew B., In re
...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 cog......
-
Sade C., In re
... ... (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 234, 250, 271 Cal.Rptr. 629; In re Adrian O. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 631, 635, 202 Cal.Rptr. 287; In re Joyleaf W. (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 865, 869, 198 Cal.Rptr. 114; In re Brian B. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 397, 398, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153; In re Jesse H. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1049, 178 Cal.Rptr. 205.) ... I am not alone in my view that the United States Supreme Court's holding in Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 applies with equal force to cases involving indigent parents appealing ... ...
-
Sade C., In re
... ... In any event, the court concluded that fear of such consequences could not alter the need for compliance with Anders. (25 Cal.3d at p. 442, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.) ... 12 However, in so holding the Brian B. court cited In re Jesse H. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 1048, 178 Cal.Rptr. 205, in which the reviewing court had in fact utilized a Wende review, thus implicitly recognizing its availability in dependency proceedings. (In Re Brian B., supra, 141 Cal.App.3d at p. 398, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153, citing 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 1049, 178 ... ...
-
Sade C., In re, s. B082230
... ... In any event, the court concluded that fear of such consequences could not alter the need for compliance with Anders. (25 Cal.3d at p. 442, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.) ... 12 However, in so holding the Brian B. court cited In re Jesse H. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 1048, 178 Cal.Rptr. 205, in which the reviewing court had in fact utilized a Wende review, thus implicitly recognizing its availability in dependency proceedings. (In re Brian B., supra, 141 Cal.App.3d at p. 398, 190 Cal.Rptr. 153, citing 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 1049, 178 ... ...