legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re W.H.
This dependency case pertains to W. H. (minor). On appeal, Paula H. (mother) challenges (1) the order denying her petition pursuant to section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] and (2) the order terminating her parental rights pursuant to section 366.26. After mother’s court appointed counsel filed a no issues brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.), mother filed a brief to identify appellate issues for our consideration. In addition, she filed an application to expand the appointment of appellate counsel to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. She claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel at the section 366.26 hearing when her attorney failed to argue that mother’s parental rights should not be terminated due to the beneficial relationship exception.
The appeal is dismissed because mother failed to raise an arguable issue for reversal of the juvenile court’s orders. In addition, we deny mother’s application because she has not shown good cause to expand the appointment of counsel to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Our analysis is set forth below.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale