M.H.
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. M.H.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Moreno, J.
*838 Opinion
In People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ], we held that when appointed counsel in an appeal from a criminal conviction files a brief raising no issues, the appellate court must review the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. In In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 981-982 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716 ], we held that such a review of the entire record is not required in an appeal like that in the present case from a juvenile court order affecting parental rights when appointed counsel for the parent files a brief raising no issues. We similarly held in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 535 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 , 150 P.3d 738 ] that when appointed counsel in an appeal from the imposition of a conservatorship files a brief raising no issues, a review of the entire record is not required, but we added in a footnote: “The conservatee is to be provided a copy of the brief and informed of the right to file a supplemental brief.” (Id. at p. 544, fn. 6.)
In the present case, appointed counsel for a parent whose parental rights were terminated by the juvenile court filed a brief raising…
Dissenting Opinion
Kennard, J.
Dissenting. — In California, a parent whose parental rights have been terminated by the superior court has a statutory right to appeal that *847 decision. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395.) 1 If the parent cannot afford appellate counsel, one will be appointed. (Fam. Code, § 7895.) When the parent’s appellate counsel finds no arguable issue, does the parent have the right to personally file a brief challenging the trial court’s decision? The majority answers “no,” further holding that when appointed counsel has raised no claim of error the parent’s appeal may be dismissed as abandoned. I disagree, as these holdings in effect nullify the parent’s statutory right to appeal.
I
The San Diego juvenile court terminated M.H.’s parental rights to her children — two-year-old Phoenix and one-year-old Dakota — choosing adoption as the permanent plan for the children. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) M.H. appealed. Because she was indigent, she asked the Court of Appeal to appoint counsel for her. The court did so.
M.H.’s appointed counsel filed with the Court of Appeal a document entitled “Appellant’s Opening Brief.” The document summarized the facts of the case and mentioned some potential claims…