In Re Paul W.

This appeal is the latest in a series of appellate challenges to juvenile court orders made in this dependency proceeding. 1 It is brought by the mother of four dependent children.

In this appeal, the mother challenges her lack of party status in the habeas corpus proceeding below, which this court ordered to examine the father’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the jurisdiction and disposition phases of the underlying dependency proceeding. The father asks us to *44 dismiss this appeal, asserting lack of standing, forfeiture, and mootness. He also defends the trial court’s decision on the merits.

So far as we are aware, no authority addresses the issue of standing in this particular procedural context. Addressing the question as one of first impression, we conclude that the mother lacks standing to prosecute this appeal. We therefore grant the father’s motion to dismiss on that ground.

OVERVIEW OF DEPENDENCY LAW

As an aid to understanding the procedural history of this case, we begin with a brief overview of dependency law.

I. Statutory Objectives

The Legislature has provided for juvenile court jurisdiction over dependent children. (Welf. & Inst. Code,…

I concur in the majority opinion. I agree that the mother in this case is not a proper party in a *66 habeas corpus proceeding initiated by the father to determine whether he received effective representation of counsel. And I agree that the mother is not aggrieved, as that term is used in the law, by the outcome of the proceeding. I therefore agree with the majority’s conclusion that the mother does not have standing to pursue an appealfrom the trial court’s order in the habeas corpus proceeding, and that her appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

I write separately to expand upon the discussion of a. point made in the majority opinion, that the rules governing habeas corpus, because they were developed in the context of criminal law, “ ‘do not fit the dependency context well.’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 53.) The use of habeas corpus in dependency cases to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is a relatively recent development in the law. (See In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 ].) However, such claims are being brought before us with increasing regularity. I therefore believe it is worthwhile, and perhaps would be helpful to…

McADAMS, J.

This appeal is the latest in a series of appellate challenges to juvenile court orders made in this dependency proceeding. [1] It is brought by the mother of four dependent children.

In this appeal, the mother challenges her lack of party status in the habeas corpus proceeding below, which this court ordered to examine the father's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the jurisdiction and disposition phases of the underlying dependency proceeding. The father asks us to dismiss this appeal, asserting lack of standing, forfeiture, and mootness. He also defends the trial court's decision on the merits.

So far as we are aware, no authority addresses the issue of standing in this particular procedural context. Addressing the question as one of first impression, we conclude that the mother lacks standing to prosecute this appeal. We therefore grant the father's motion to dismiss on that ground.

As an aid to understanding the procedural history of this case, we begin with a brief overview of dependency law.

The Legislature has provided for juvenile court jurisdiction over dependent children. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 300 et seq.) [2] The primary goal of the…