In Re Candy S.

Villareal v. Ethel S.

Good Law
176 Cal. App. 3d 329·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2944·222 Cal. Rptr. 43
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 12, 1985A030340California339 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elkington, J.

Ethel S.,mother of Candy S., a minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court, dated December 12 and 17, 1984, declaring, among other things, that Candy was a ward of the juvenile court.

Ms. S.’s second and remaining appellate contention is that: “The court has failed to examine the present circumstances as required in a 232 proceeding.”

It will be remembered that the juvenile court’s order stated: “The matter is referred to the State Department of Social Services for the initiation of a [Civil Code section] 232 action.”

We are of the opinion that no appeal lies from such a “reference” to the State Department of Social Services for initiation of a section 232 action. It is only when a party is “aggrieved” by a judgment or order that he or she may appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 902.) For a valid appeal one must be injuriously affected by the court’s ruling in an immediate and substantial manner, and not as a nominal or remote consequence. (Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciati, 92 Cal.App.3d 146, 153 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 676 ]; Winter v. Gnaizda, 90 Cal.App.3d 750, 754 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 700 ].) And the rule that an appeal may be taken only by an aggrieved party is “strictly applied by…

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.