In Re Candy S.
Villareal v. Ethel S.
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…