Summary
The California Supreme Court held that a father whose parental rights were terminated, and who did not challenge that termination, lacked standing to appeal an order denying the dependent child’s grandparents’ petition for placement. The court explained that only a person whose rights or interests are immediately and substantially affected by an order may appeal. Because the father had acquiesced in the termination of his parental rights, reversal of the placement order would not advance any argument against termination.
Holdings
- A parent whose parental rights have been terminated has standing to appeal an order concerning the dependent child's placement only if reversal of the placement order would advance the parent's argument against termination of parental rights. Because father did not contest termination, he had no remaining legally cognizable interest that made him aggrieved by the placement order and therefore lacked standing to appeal it.
Questions Presented
- Whether a father whose parental rights have been terminated, and who does not challenge that termination, has standing to appeal an order denying the dependent child's grandparents' petition to modify the child's placement.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (12)
- In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1054, 1061-1062(distinguished)
- In re H.G. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1, 10-11, 18(distinguished)
- In re Aaron R. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 697, 702-703(followed)
- In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 948(followed)
- County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 737(followed)
- Estate of Colton (1912) 164 Cal. 1, 5(followed)
- In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 306, 309(followed)
- In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228(followed)
- In re A.M. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 914, 925(followed)
- In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…