In Re Lamonica H.

Good Law
220 Cal. App. 3d 634·270 Cal. Rptr. 60
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 1990D009166California6,046 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nancy A. Dorner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

Edwin L. Miller, Jr., District Attorney, Thomas F. McArdle and Patricia L. Davis, Deputy District Attorneys, for Petitioner and Respondent.

Winifred Chernoff for Minor.

OPINION

BENKE, J. —

Referees are empowered to conduct dependency proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code, [1] section 300, without stipulation or other approval of the parties, when the proceedings are in accordance with section 248, which provides a right for rehearing before the superior court. When a referee conducts the hearing not as a referee, but as a "temporary judge," the rehearing right does not pertain. Service as a "temporary judge," however, must be based upon the written stipulation of the parties. (Art. VI, § 21 of the Cal. Const.; rule 244 of the Cal. Rules of Court. [2] ) Here we conclude the requirement of a written stipulation is directory rather than jurisdictional and further that knowing participation in the proceedings before a referee acting as a temporary judge will be deemed tantamount to a stipulation.

On July 30, 1988, Kathy H. took her 10-year-old daughter Gloria W. to Sharp Hospital.…

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.