In Re Mary B.

Capovilla v. Mary B.

Caution
1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1223·20 Cal. App. 3d 816·98 Cal. Rptr. 178
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 26, 1971Civ. 13047California1,157 words

Opinion

Opinion

Friedman, J.

In company with two boys Mary B., age 15, took an automobile trip without consent of the vehicle’s owner. The Butte County Juvenile Court entered a jurisdictional order declaring she came within section 602, Welfare and Institutions Code. It ordered the case transferred to Tehama County where the minor and her parents lived. In the latter county the court appointed counsel, held a hearing and entered an order of disposition. The minor’s attorney filed in Tehama County a notice of appeal from the jurisdictional order of the Butte County court.

The order of transfer to the county of the minor’s residence had accomplished removal of “the entire case” to Tehama County. (§ 750.) Thus, although the appeal is from the order of the Butte County court, the notice of appeal was properly filed in Tehama County. A party who seeks to attack a transferred wardship order should recognize that the clock is running on his appeal without regard to developments in the county of residence. (See § 800.) Here the appeal is timely, the notice having been filed just before lapse of the 60-day period from the order under attack. (See rule 2, Cal. Rules of Court; In re De Baca, 197 Cal.App.2d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.