In re A.M. CA4/2

INTRODUCTION

Anthony M. (Father) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition

seeking increased visitation with his minor son A.M. The juvenile court summarily

denied the petition without holding a hearing, and Father timely filed a notice of appeal.

The same day Father filed his notice of appeal, he filed a second section 388 petition that

also sought increased visitation with A.M. The juvenile court summarily denied the

second petition without holding a hearing, and Father did not appeal the denial.

Father contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily denying his

section 388 petitions without holding an evidentiary hearing. San Bernardino County

Children and Family Services (CFS) contends the juvenile court properly denied the

petitions. CFS also asserts that we must limit our review to the first section 388 petition

because Father did not appeal the denial of the second petition.

We agree with CFS. Father’s failure to appeal the second petition was a

jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by liberally construing the notice of appeal. We

therefore limit our review to Father’s first section 388 petition and conclude the…