LINDA B. v. Superior Court

Good Law
111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 559·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 712·2001 Daily Journal DAR 9757·92 Cal. App. 4th 150·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7928
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 6, 2001B146128, B149246California1,662 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

Background

After the juvenile court entered an order denying reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, Linda B.’s (Mother) attorney filed a notice of appeal from the order, instead of a petition for extraordinary writ. Shortly after filing an opening brief, Mother’s appellate counsel also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus or in the alternative, for writ of mandate, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, in case No. B149246. We treated the petition as a motion for relief from default under rule 39. IB of the California Rules of Court, consolidated it with the appeal, and requested respondent to serve and file opposition to the motion. On May 31, 2001, we granted the motion, and ordered that the appeal be treated as a petition for writ of mandate, timely filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 39.IB.

Emmanuel was bom approximately 12 weeks prematurely on June 6, 2000, and was detained a few days later. According to the disposition report prepared by respondent, Mother had a long history of dmg abuse, and at the time Emmanuel was bom, she was serving a one-year term for a parole violation that…

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.