WPC* Op?ngᯍ&6S,/{IgeGEPz+M̺݇9NyGgǶ BH |oPW􍌴9r3=HUm6[_P9t}:\_4#G@)(R\Cb56xx iu3̍N.8v3I0B)yECR07ɡ8 /E7~cM 1u 1 0pcm 0w 0G 0 0q 0% 0 0 1 1= 1 1K 0N 1 !! 1Q"" Rh$ 1$ 1A% R% 1& 1& 1(' 1' 16( 72((((((((((((((((((((( 1(((((((((((((((((((((((((((( Bv)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v)v) B-))))))))))))))))) R))))))))) DE******************** RW*HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($. .:i3|xU((3$ !      0  (#$  0  (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular+p 0Times New Roman Bold 6  $    3    _ԀXXQuiteoftenadeputycountycounselwillcontacttheparentsappellatecounselto  telltheattorneythatthechildrenaregoingtobereturnedtothecareoftheparents,and  requestingtheattorneytoagreetoadismissaloftheappeal.Dismissalisnot  recommendeduntil:1)thechildrenareinfactreturnedhome;and2)theappellate  attorneyissatisfiedthatthereisnotacontinuingcontroversyforresolutionbythe  reviewingcourt.Theappellateprojectsareavailableforconsultationsconcerning   whetheranappealshouldbedismissed.#XXT#\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)   $    2    _XXSubdivision(a)expresslystatesacourtmayfindthereisasubstantialriskof  seriousfutureinjurytoachildbasedonthehistoryofrepeatedinflictionsofinjurieson  thechildssiblings.Similarly,subdivision(j)authorizesassumptionofjurisdictionwhere  thechildssiblinghasbeenabusedorneglected,asdefinedinsubdivision(a),(b),(d),  (e),or(_i_),andthereisasubstantialriskthatthechildwillbeabusedorneglected,as  definedinthosesubdivisions.h`CEIMQUY]aAutoList9""""""""i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#hEGKOSW[_cAutoList10"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList11"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList12"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList13"""""""")1)a)>$"Small Circle"0  hEGKOSW[_cAutoList14"""""""")1)a) mootnessKieshianon-custodial RivaAlyshaMerandaMerandaJanee`EGKOSW[_cAutoList16"""""""")1)a)   $    1    _XXTheassistanceofBradBristow,staffattorneyattheCentralCaliforniaAppellate  Program,andJan_Saalfield_,panelattorney,isgratefullyacknowledgedinthepreparation  ofthesematerialsonmootness.Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 CalhEGKOSW[_cAutoList17"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList15"""""""")1)a)Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 CalhEGKOSW[_cAutoList18"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList19"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList20"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList21"""""""")1)a)hEGKOSW[_cAutoList22"""""""")1)a)i)(hCEKQW]cioAutoList8I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. d)Hairline dSteve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal9Hairline!dxdxIn re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d !  _8XXdd8 XX@MOOTNESSANDWAIVER:IMPEDIMENTSTOAPPELLATE  @4 4 REVIEWINDEPENDENCYCASES  #XXg# XX@"ByFrancesTernus  @  StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject   @66&May2001     Inevaluating_______________issue__sindependencycases__for_Ԁappellatereview,anessential   considerationiswhethertheissueisstillripeforcourtconsiderationandisnotmoot.An   additionalconsiderationiswhethertheissuehasbeenpreservedbyanobjectioninthe   trialcourtorbyearlierappealandhasnotbeenwaived.Thisoutlineisbroadlydivided  intomootnessandwaiver,andincludessuggestionsonhowtopresentadefaultedclaim.  Themootnesssectionidentifiestypicalsituationswherethequestionofmootnessmaybe  raisedandthelegalbasisforavoidingmootnesschallenges.Thewaiversectionidentifies  claimswhichcanberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,#XXJ#XXcircumstanceswhichmay  constituteawaiver,andsuggestionsforarguingdefaultedclaims.   C(h83@ Zd!@ #XX#XXI.0  MOOTNESS#XXq# _$  #  1      _!" @(8yb#"|"|!@   XXXX X X  MootnessDefined .Duetotheconstantlychangingsituationsofchildren#  # Ԁandtheir N$ familiesinthejuvenilecourt,thequestionisoftenraisedwhetheranappealhasbeen V&!! renderedmootbythesubsequentmodificationofthejuvenilecourtorder.Mootnessis  definedasfollows:  8  Thedutyofthiscourt,asofeveryotherjudicialtribunal,istodecide  actualcontroversiesbyajudgmentwhichcanbecarriedintoeffect,andnot   togiveopinionsuponmootquestionsorabstractpropositions,ortodeclare   principlesorrulesoflawwhichcannoteffectthematterinissueinthecase   beforeit.Itnecessarilyfollowsthatwhen,pendinganappealfromthe   judgmentofalowercourt,andwithoutanyfaultofthedefendant,anevent   occurswhichrendersitimpossibleforthiscourt,ifitshoulddecidethecase   infavorofplaintiff,togranthimanyeffectualreliefwhatever,thecourt   willnotproceedtoaformaljudgment,butwilldismisstheappeal.   (Consol.Etc.Corp.v.UnitedA.Etc.Workers(1946)27Cal.2d859,863   [Citationsomitted].)      TypicalSituations. Independencycases,questionsofmootnessmayberaisedby  theCountyCounselonamotiontodismissorbythereviewingcourtonarequestfor  supplementalbriefinginthefollowingsituations:      ."0    ݀Wherethecustodyofthechildrenhasbeenreturnedtotheparents. .I݌(#(# Ќ      "0    ݀Whereadetentionorderhasbeensupersededbyjurisdictionanddisposition. ݌(#(# Ќ      "0    ݀Whereanappealisfollowedbyaparentalrightsterminationthatisnotappealed ݌(#(# Ќ      "0    ݀Wherethejuvenilecourthassubsequentlyterminatedjurisdiction. ݌!(#(# Ќ      "0    ݀Wherethechildhassinceturned18yearsofage.   ݌#(#(# Ќ    Intheabovesituations,itisimportantfortheparentsorchildsattorneyto %!! determinewhetherthereisinfactacontinuingcontroversysuchthatitwouldbe '## inappropriatetodismisstheappeal.Inthosecases,thedismissalshouldbeopposed. )%% And,aswillbediscussed,thereareafewpreventivemeasuresthatcounselmaytaketo +'' reducetheprobabilityofdismissalofanotherwisevalidappeal.Bothtrialandappellate  counsel,intherepresentationoftheclient,shouldconsidertakingthosepreventive  actions.    Alsonotethatin serialappeals ,wheretheparenthasappealedseveralorders,   somedistrictstakethepositionthat#  #solongasanappealispendingandappellantwishes   tohavethematterremandedtothejuvenilecourt,thejuvenilecourtmusthaveongoing   jurisdictioneitherbecausethecaseisstillbeingheardinjuvenilecourtorbecausea   parenthasfiledanoticeofappealfromtheorderterminatingjurisdiction.Thus,evenifa  parentdoesnototherwiseobjecttotheterminationofjurisdiction,iftheparentwishesto  havethecourtofappealruleonissuesarisingfromorderspreviouslymade(includingbut  notlimitedtothejurisdictionalfinding),thentheparentmustfileanoticeofappealfrom  theorderterminatingjurisdictionsoastopreservetherightofthecourtofappealtomake  aremandorder.#XX #XXThesecourtsbelievethattheyarefullyjustifiedinfindingachallengeto  thefindingofjurisdiction,forexample,mootiftherehasbeennonoticeofappealfiled  fromorderterminatingjurisdiction.Presumably,too,theparent'sappellatecounselmust   somehowkeepthatsubsequentappealopen(bynotfilingaSadeC.brief)evenifthere " arenoissuesotherthantheissuesintheearlierappeal.#XXT#XX  $    LegalBasisforAvoidingMootnessChallenges.  &""   ContinuingControversies Thestrongestbasisforchallengingmootnessisto ($$ establishthat_issues____remain_Ԁneedingresolutionbythecourtofappealwhichwillhave_ *&& an_Ԁadverseimpactontheparties.Forexample,anappealchallengingthesufficiencyof  evidencesupportingjuvenilecourtjurisdictionisnotmademootbythereturnofthe  childrentotheparentscustody.Thatissobecausethejuvenilejurisdictionisstill  pending,withallofitslimitationsonparentalrights.# #    # /"#   However,evenifthejuvenilecourtterminatesjurisdictionormakesorders   benefittingtheparent,theremaycontinuetobeacontroversybetweenthepartiesin   pendingorfuturecases.Anexamplewouldbewherefuturerightsofthepartiesmaybe   affected,suchasamothersrighttovisitation.(InreDylanT.(1998)65Cal.App.4th  765# "# :[reversingorderprecludingincarceratedjailvisitationbecauseofchild'syoungage  inspiteofthefactmotherwasoutofcustodyandvisitingchild];InreMichaelD.(1996)  51Cal.App.4th1074,1081,fn.2.:[denyingmotiontodismissappealasmootwherewhile  thematterwaspendingonappealthechildwasreturnedtohismother];# $# InreJoelH.  (1993)19Cal.App.4th_1185# c&# :# &# _Ԁ# 7'# [terminationofjurisdictionandreturntothemotherdidnot  renderitimpossibletograntformercaretakeranyeffectualrelief;childmayonceagain  becomeadependentandformercaretakercouldeffectivelyofferherservicesshouldthey   beneededinthefuture].)# '#  "   Anotherexamplewheretheparentmaybeadverselyaffectedinthe_future_Ԁwould $  bewherethecountyreliedonthefactthatjurisdictionhadbeensustainedinthepresent &"" caseasproofofpriorneglectorabuse.Indeed,twosubdivisionsofsection300ofthe ($$ WelfareandInstitutionsCodeauthorizesassumptionofjurisdictionoverachildbasedon *&& priorallegationsconcerningasibling._  #  2      _Ԁ      Alsoitshouldbearguedthatthe_parties_Ԁissuesshouldbeaddressedsothatthey  may cleartheirnames.(InreDanaJ.(1972)26Cal.App.3d768,771[adelinquency  casewherethecourtsaidtheappealisnotmootwhere thematterofabesmirchedname   _remains];note,_Ԁhowever,theFirstDistrictcaseofInreMichelleM.(1992)8Cal.App.   4th326foundthereasoningofDanaJinapplicablebecauseitwasadelinquencycase,   andnotaterminationofparentalrightscase.# )# )# .#      Furthermore,thefactthatjurisdictionwassustainedmightbeusedagainstthe  parentswhentheyapplyforfurtherlicensing,suchasafosterhomelicense.# .# Acase  establishingthispointisEyeDogFoundationv.StateBoardofGuideDogsfortheBlind  (1967)67Cal.2d536,542,wheretheSupremeCourtaddressedtheissuesonappealeven  thoughtheapplicanthadwithdrawnitslicenseapplication,becausetheissueswould  hinderitsfutureapplications.  Ѐ  Anditshouldbenotedthataterminationofjurisdictionisnotnecessarilythesame  thingasadismissalofthepetition.Infact,whenapetitionissustainedandcustodyis   awarded,followedbyadismissalofjurisdictioninfavorofthefamilycourt,the " jurisdictionalfindingsarefinalandmaynotbechallengedinthefamilycourt.Inthis  situation,theappealshouldnotbedismissed.(InreJoshuaC.(1994)24Cal.App.4th  1544.)    Othercourterrorsmayhavecontinuingeffectsdespitesubsequentmodification.   Thussomeattorneyshavesuccessfullychallengeddispositionsremovingchildrenfrom   thehomeevenafterthechildrenhavebeenreturnedhome.Manyotherappealsare   dismissedinthissituation.Thedecisionwhetherornottheappealshouldbedismissed   dependsonthefactsofthecase.  #  3      ׀(Cf.,InreKristinB.(1986)187Cal.App.3d596,603  606.)  #  0#  TherecentcaseofInreJessicaK.(2000)79Cal.App.4th1313presentsatypical  exampleofwhenan S appellatecourtdismissesanappealasmoot.Here,themother  appealedthejuvenilecourtorderdenyinghersection388petitiontoreturnthechildrento  hercustody.Thejuvenilecourthadsubsequentlyterminatedherparentalrightsastothe  children,andthemotherdidnotappealthatorder.Astheorderterminatingrightswas  finaland___nonmodifiable,_Ԁtheappellatecourtcouldnotgrantreliefbetweentheparties,   requiringadismissaloftheappeal.#6#  " # (:#   Similarly,althoughmostappealsaredismisseduponthechildbecominganadult,  againtheremaybecontinuingcontroversyastotheunderlyingfactsofjurisdiction,orthe  childmaysuffercontinuingdisabilitiesbeyondage18,asaresultofthepetitionsustained  inthejuvenilecourt.Again,thesituationshouldbeexaminedonacasebycasebasis.      ContinuingPublicConcern Whenallothertheoriesofa continuing  S controversyhavefailed,theargumentshouldbepursuedthattheissueisoneof  [  continuingpublicconcern,i.e.,anissueofsubstantialpublicinterestbeyond_that_Ԁinthe  [  presentlitigationwhichiscapableofrepetition,yetevadesreview.(InreNatashaA.  [ (1996)42Cal.App.4th28,38;InreWilliamM.(1970)3Cal.3d16,23,fn.14[ We  [ shouldnotavoidtheresolutionofimportantandwelllitigatedcontroversiesarisingfrom  [ situationswhicharecapableofrepetition,yetevadingreview.[Citations.])# :# Underthis  [ theory,anappealofadetentionhearingwaspermittedin_In_ԀreRaymondG.(1991)230  [ Cal.App.3d964,967,eventhoughdetentionordersaregenerallyreviewableonlybywrit,  [ andthecasehadsubsequentlyproceededtojurisdictionalanddisposition.Thecourt  [ notedthattheappealwouldbeaddressedonthemeritsbecausetheissue,thestandard  ![ applicabletoemergencyremovalofchild,wasoneofthose capableofrepetitionyet  #[ evadingreview.Likewise,inInreKieshiaE.(1993)6Cal.4th68,75,# ?# fn.5,the  %[  CaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatthequestionwhetherachildabusermayinterveneas  '["" thevictim'sdefactoparentinproceedingswhicharosefromtheabuseisnotmooteven  )[$$ whenthepotentialdefactoparentdies.# B# Additionally,in_In_ԀreMarquisD.(1995)38  +[&& Cal.App.4th1813,1823,thecourtofappealconsideredthecountyserroneouspracticeof  bypassingplacementwithnoncustodialparents.# C# Andagain,in_In_ԀReneeS.v.Superior  Court(1999)76Cal.App.4th187,thecourtfounditappropriatetoresolvetheissueof  failureofthejuvenilecourtasamatterofpolicytoholdtimely_hearings,_Ԁnotwithstanding   thatthedependencyproceedingshadalreadybeenconcludedandthechildrenhadbeen   returnedtoparental_custody.Thecourtreasoned____such_Ԁapolicy_wouldlikely_Ԁ___cause_Ԁdelays   infuture_proceedingsandwas_Ԁcontrarytostatutoryrequirements.(Seealso,InreJeanette   H.(1990)225Cal.App.3d25[reachingmeritsofappealinvolvingsignificantissues  regardingthejuvenilecourtsdiscoverypolicy]# 8E# ;InreJohnW.(1996)41Cal.App.4th  961[reachingmeritsofappealinvolvingsignificantissuesregardingtheuseofthe  juveniledependencysystemtosubsidizeprivatechildcustodydisputes];Roev.Wade  (1973)410U.S.113,125[35L.Ed.2d147,93S.Ct.705;InreWilliamM.,supra,atpp.  2324,andcasesthereincited.)    Althoughtheappellatecourtaddressesmootnessonacasebycasebasis,the S detentionhearingisnormallymootedafterjurisdictionanddispositionishad. !S Proceedingbyappealonadetentionissuemaynotbeproductiveunlessitcanbeshown #S thatthedetentionorderbeingchallengedispartofastandingruleinthejuvenilecourt. %S  Evenifitisamatterofcontinuingpublicconcern,itmaybebetteraddressedbywrit. 'S""   V)$$ & c     PreventiveMeasures.       ContacttheTrialAttorney Aparentsvalidappealmaybemootedby  [ _'cMsubsequent_Ԁlegalinactivityofthatparent.Oneexampleofthisoccurswhentheparent  c hassoughtanorderatonehearingbutfailstotakeactiontopreservethecontroversyata  c subsequenthearing.Thismaymoottheappealfromtheprevioushearingifitappears  c thatthepartyhasabandonedhisorherrequest.(InreMichelleM.,supra,atpp.329330 c  [jurisdictionsubsequentlyterminatedandparentdidnotappeal].)Anevenmore c  aggravatedexampleoccurswhere,afteranappealisfiled,thejuvenilecourtmatter c subsequentlyproceedstoparentalrightstermination,andtheparentdoesnotappealthat c order.Thismootsthependingappeal.(InreJessicaK.(2000)79_Cal.App_.4th1313, c 13161317.)Atimelyappealfromthesubsequentordermayhavesavedtheprevious c appeal.(Id.,atp.1317;Inre_Kristin_ԀB.,supra,187_Cal.App_.3datpp.603605.) c   Itisincumbentupontheappellateattorneyandthetrialattorneytoensurethat f subsequentinactivityisamatteroftheparentsknowingchoiceratherthanignoranceor f inadvertence.Theappellateattorneyshouldcalltheattorneywitharemindertomake f! necessarychallengesattheupcominghearing,andifappropriate,fileasubsequent f# appeal.Itisnotnecessarytomakefutilechallengestopreserveissuesthatarenolonger f%  beforethecourt.(InreChristieD.(1988)206_Cal.App_.3d469,475476[holdingthata f'"" partydoesnothavetocontestdispositiontopreservepreviouslyraisedjurisdictional f)$$ issues].)If,ontheotherhand,iftheissueonappealisdenialofplacementwithone f+&& relative,andtheclientseeksandobtainsplacementwithanotherrelativeatthe  subsequenthearing,thatactivitymayendangertheappeal.Again,theappellateattorney  shouldadvisetheparentandthetrialattorneyoftheseconsiderationstopreventan  inadvertentdefault.      ExpeditetheAppeal Also,theappellateattorneyshouldconsidertheimpactof  S thewaytheappellatecaseishandleduponthecontinuingeffectivenessoftheappeal.  [  Theappellateattorneyshouldaskthefollowingquestions:  [        Y"0 `   Whatwillbetheeffectofseekinganotherextensionoftime? YY݌^` (#` (# Ќ        Z"0 `   Shouldtherecordbecorrectedinthetraditionalwayorcanthisbe  expedited? ZZ݌` (#` (# Ќ        ["0 `   Cantheappealitselfbeexpeditedbyhavingitdeemedorjoinedwithawrit T thattheappellateattorneyhasremindedthetrialattorneytofile? [[݌T` (#` (# Ќ        \"0 `   Ifnot,cananapplicationbemadetothetrialcourttostayorcontinuethe W section366.26hearing,sothatthepreviousappealcanbeheard? \\݌W ` (#` (# Ќ        ^"0 `   Shouldanappealfromthedenialofthepetitiontomodifybeconsolidated " withthesection366.26hearingtoavoidthepossibilityofthecourtdeciding $ theparentalrightsterminationappealfirst?# I#     ^#^݌&! ` (#` (# Ќ   P+&$ @ Zd@ #XX#XXII. WAIVER#XX^`##XXXXʌ`# " @(8y"|"|!_@   XXXX  #XXX X`a# XXXX#XXX Xa#  XXGenerally,afailuretoobjecttoanerrororfailuretoappealanearliererrorwaives D theclaimforpurposesofappellatereviewindependencycases.Thetheorybeingthatany  D otherrulewouldpermitapartytoplayfastandloosewiththeadministrationofjusticeby  D deliberatelystandingbywithoutmakinganobjectionofwhichheisaware.(InreRivaM.  D  (1991)235Cal.App.3d403.)Additionally,somesubmissionsalsoconstitutewaiverof D  appeal.Thissectionfirstdescribesthelimitedtypesofclaimswhicharenotwaived D  becauseofafailuretoobjectortoappeal.Itisfollowedbyadescriptionofwhat D constitutesawaiverandsuggestedargumentswhenfacedwithsuchwaivedclaims. D  Examplesofclaimswhichcanberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal:  G  &(x8C"3"  3vf2"3  0    SufficiencyoftheEvidence: Sufficiencyoftheevidenceissuesareneverwaived  aslongastherewasnotanocontestplea,anadmission,orsubmissiononthe  recommendation.(InreTommyE.(1992)7Cal.App.4th1234;Steve ( ԀJ.v.Superior  Court(1995)35Cal.App.4th798;alsoseebelow.)3vff݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  3h2"3  0    SufficiencyofthePetitiontoStateaCauseofAction: achallengetothefacial "A insufficiencyofpetition,arguingthatitfailstostateacauseofaction,canbe $I  raisedforthefirsttimeonappealbecauseitis"akin"toademurrer.(InreAlyshaS. &I"  (1996)51Cal.App.4th393;butseeInreShelleyJ.(1998)68Cal.App.4th322.).3hh݌(I$"(#(# Ќ  "3"  3j2"3  0    Denialofconstitutionallyadequatenoticeofallegations:( InreTroyD.(1989) L+&$ 215Cal.App.3d889,896.)3j'k݌(#(# Ќ   (xx&"3"  3l2"3  0    PureQuestionofLaw: apartymayraiseforthefirsttimeonappealapure S questionoflawpresentedbyundisputedfacts,includingaconstitutionalquestion.3ll݌ [(#(# Ќ  0  (Halev.Morgan(1978)22Cal.3d388,394;InreJasmineC.(1999)70 ^  Cal.App.4th71,78,fn.3;InreTaniaS.(1992)5Cal.App.4th728,735)^ (#(#  #(px"3"  3o2"3  0    TheWaiverRulenotenforcedifDueProcessforbidsit: MerandaP. (Inre   MerandaP.(1997)56Cal.App.4th1143.)didnotcreatean absolute bartoreview   ofineffectiveassistance,righttocounsel,orotherclaimstardilypresentedona   .26hearingappeal.Theremustbesome defectthatfundamentallyundermined   thestatutoryscheme sothattheparentwouldhavebeenkeptfromavailing  himselforherselfoftheprotectionsaffordedbytheschemeasawhole.  Furthermore,tofalloutsidethewaiverrule, defectsmustgobeyondmereerrors   thatmighthavebeenheldreversiblehadtheybeenproperlyandtimelyreviewed. ! Toallowanexceptionformere"reversibleerror"ofthatsortwouldabrogatethe ! reviewschemeandturnthequestionofwaiverintoareviewonthemerits.(Inre !! JaneeJ.(1999)74Cal.App.4th198,208209.)3oo݌#!(#(# Ќ  "3"  3t2"3  0    Errorsoelementalthatwaiverrulerelaxed: 3tt݌$&t! (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;u0  2"3  0` (#(#  _Failuretogiverequired noticeofrule39.1Brights isanelementalwhich (#" requiresthatwaiverruleberelaxed.(Inre_Cathina_ԀW.(1998)68 *%$ Cal.App.4th716,719-724.);uu݌` (#` (# Ќ   *(xp#"3"  ݀0  3w2"3  0` (#(#  Failureto orderreunificationservices .(InreJohnB.(1984)159 S Cal.App.3d268,275;seealsoInreJeremyC.(1980)109Cal.App.3d384,  [ 392.)3wx݌ [` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  ݀0  3sy2"3  0` (#(#  Failuretoraiseissueof independentcounselforminors solongasthe ^  juvenilecourtknew,orreasonablyshouldhaveknown,ofthepossibilityof f  aconflictofinterest.(InreElizabethM.  Ԁ(1991)232Cal.App.3d553,563 f  564.)3syy݌f` (#` (# Ќ  "3"  ݀0  3x{2"3  0` (#(#  Failuretoobjecttothe exclusionoftrialcounsel frominchambershearing   atwhichminortestifiesdoesnotoperateasawaiveroftherighttocounsel  ortherighttoconfrontwitnesses.(InreLauraH.(1992)8Cal.App.4th  1689,butseeInre_Gilberto_ԀM.(1992)6Cal.App.4th1194,1200.)3x{{݌` (#` (# Ќ  ExamplesofCircumstancesWhichConstituteaWaiver:  d  (`x x *"3 "  3~2`"3  0    Petition:pleaofnocontest: Pleaofnocontesttopetitionallegationswaivesright c  tosufficiencyoftheevidencechallengeonappeal.(InreTroyZ.(1992)3Cal.4th k" 1170.)3~~݌k$(#(# Ќ  "3 "  3F2`"3  0    Petition:Admission: Admissionthattheallegationsofadependencypetitionare &"  trueeffectivelywaivesobjectionstothetechnicalsufficiencyofthepleading.(In ($" re_Rodger_ԀH.(1991)228Cal.App.3d1174,1181.)3Fs݌*&$(#(# Ќ   (x x "3 "  32"3  0    Submissiononrecommendationofsocialworkersreport: Submissionofthe  socialworkersrecommendationwaivesrighttochallengecourtorderonappeal. @^"   (InreRichardK.(1994)25Cal.App.4th580;Steve  ԀJ.v.SuperiorCourt(1995)35  Cal.App.4th798.)3ւ݌ (#(# Ќ   (x x "3 "  3P2"3  0    Note:submissiononreportonlyisnotawaiverofappeal: insubmittingthe  [ matter,parentwasonlyagreeingtopermitthejuvenilecourttodecidethetruthof c  thepetitiononthebasisofthesocialworker'sreport,notagreeingwiththesocial c  workersrecommendation;thus,appealonsufficiencynotwaived.(InreTommy c E.(1992)7Cal.App.4th1234;Steve % ԀJ.v.SuperiorCourt(1995)35Cal.App.4th c 798.)3P}݌c(#(# Ќ  "3 "  3,2"3  0    Alsonotethatagreementwithdispositionalorderdoesnotwaiverightto f challengejurisdictionalfindingsonappeal: (InreJenniferV.(1988)197 n Cal.App.3d1206,12091210.)3,Y݌v(#(# Ќ   !(xx"3"  3H2"3  0    Stipulationsand/orfailuretoattackatlaterhearings: Stipulationatsixmonth  reviewthatconditionsstillexistwhichwouldjustifytheinitialassumptionof !! jurisdictionundersection300isaconcessionwhichwaiveschallenging #! jurisdictionalorderonappeal.(InreEricA.(1999)73Cal.App.4th1390.) %!!  Stipulationtotheserviceplanwaivesappellatechallengetotheplanitself;failure '!#" tochallengeadequacyoftheservicesatreviewhearingprecludesappellate )!%$ challenge.(MiguelV.v.SuperiorCourt(1999)73Cal.App.4th9,13.)3Hu݌+!'&(#(# Ќ  "3"  32"3  0    Failuretoappeal: Subsequentchallengetoadequacyofreunificationservices  barredduetofailuretoappealdispositionalorder.(InreJulieM.(1999)69  Cal.App.4th41,4647);subsequentchallengetoadequacyofreunification  servicesbarredbyfailuretochallengethemearlier.(L.A.DepartmentofChildren   andFamilyServicesv.SuperiorCourt(1997)60Cal.App.4th1088,10921093);0@h"inginca   'waiverrule'issuchasubstantialbartoappealthattheappellatecourtcandecline   tocarveoutanexceptiontowaiverruleeventhoughtheissuesraisedinvolvethe   importantconstitutionalandstatutoryrightstocounselandtotheeffective  assistanceofcounsel.(InreMerandaP.,supra,atp.1150.)  3ԍ݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  32"3  0    Failuretoobjectto:3'݌ [(#(# Ќ   ,(xx!"3"    3I2"3  0 `   Assessments: tothelackofa preliminaryassessmentoftheprospective f guardian ,aparentwaivesherrighttoclaimfailuretoobtainthat n assessmentonappeal.(InreDakotaS.(2000)84Cal.App.4th494,502);to v  statutorilymandatedinformationinadoptionassessment ,waives v appellatechallenge.(InreUraynaL.(1999)75Cal.App.4th883,885887.)3I݌~!` (#` (# Ќ   -(xx,"3"    3_2"3  0 `   Notice: Issueofassertedlackofnoticethatsocialservicesagencywould #!  seektoprecludereunificationservices iswaivedforappealbyparents %)!  failuretoobjectinthetrialcourt.(MarleneM.v.SuperiorCourt(2000)80 '1#" Cal.App.4th1139);Failuretoassert impropernoticeofsection366.26 )1%$ hearing injuvenilecourtoperatesasawaiverofthatassertiononappeal. +9'& (InreLucasB.(2000)79Cal.App.4th1145,1152.)3_݌` (#` (# Ќ  "3"    3M2"3  0 `   Evidence: failuretoobjecttoimproperorinadmissibleevidencewaives S challengeonappeal.(InreClaraB.(1993)20Cal.App.4th988,1000.)3M݌ [` (#` (# Ќ  m  WhatToDoWhentheIssueWasNotPreserved # m#:Iftheerrorallegedcannotbeplaced ^  intooneoftheabovementionedcategoriesofabsoluterighttoappealwhennotpreserved f  below,conceivablysomeofthesuggestionsbelowmaymaketheissueviable.Includedin f  thisdiscussionarecriminalcaseswhichalsoprovideargumentsforreviewofdefaulted f  claimssinceCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule39providesthatrulesgoverningcriminal f casesandappealsapplytojuvenileproceedingsunlessotherwisespecified.(InreShelley f J.(1998)68Cal.App.4th322.) f "3"  3ŝ2"3  0    ArguethatreachingissuenowwillforestallIACclaim: thecourtmayconsider   claimoferrorotherwisewaivedbyfailingtoraiseitbelowinordertoforestallany  claimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.(InreMelvinA.(2000)82Cal.App.4th  1243,1252.)3ŝ݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  3ȟ2"3  0    Arguethatissueispurequestionoflaw: cansomepartoftheissuebe "d characterizedasaconstitutionalquestion.(Halev.Morgan(1978)22Cal.3d388, $l 394;InreJasmineC.(1999)70Cal.App.4th71,78,fn.3;InreTaniaS.(1992)5 &l!  Cal.App.4th728,735)3ȟ݌(l#"(#(# Ќ  "3"  3ԡ2"3  0    m Arguethatcourthasdiscretiontoreachmerits: # mJ#m  Anappellatecourtis o*%$ generallynotprohibitedfromreachingaquestionthathasnotbeenpreservedfor  reviewbyaparty.Indeed,ithastheauthoritytodoso...Whetherornotitshould  dosoisentrustedtoitsdiscretion.(Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148,  161fn.6,citationsomitted.) # mɢ#3ԡ݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  32"3  0    m  Arguethatthe___question_Ԁofwhethertherewasawaiveriscloseanddifficult :  S  Becausethequestionofwhetherdefendantshavepreservedtheirrighttoraise  [  thisissueonappealiscloseanddifficult,weassumethatdefendantshave  [  preservedtheirright,andproceedtothemerits.(Peoplev.Champion(1995)9  [ Cal.4th879,908n.6,citationsomitted.)# m`#3݌ [(#(# Ќ  "3"  32"3  0    m  Arguethatjudicialeconomyfavorsreachingthemerits :possibleargumentin ^ aserialappealsituation.(Seealso# m^#Inre_Kacy_ԀS.(1998)68Cal.App.4th704,713.)3݌f(#(# Ќ  "3"  3é2"3  0    m Argueineffectiveassistanceofcounsel :Arguethattrialcounselsfailureto   preservetheerrorconstitutedincompetentrepresentationandprejudicedyour  clientinviolationoftheSixthAmendmentrighttoeffectiverepresentation.The  claim,however,willbereviewedunderthemoreonerousIACstandard,which ! canevenbemoredifficultindependencycasesthanincriminalones.# m9#(InreJanee # _J.(1999)74Cal.App.4th198,208209.)3é݌%! (#(# Ќ  "3"  32"3  0    m Arguebecausethestateofthelawwasunsettled,courtofappealmaynot (d#" presumefromasilentrecordthatthetrialcourtappliedthelawcorrectly: *l%$  # mj#thisargumentmaybepossibleinacasewherethereisasplitofauthority,sucha ,l'& failureofthepetitiontostateacauseofaction,asnotedabove.3!݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  3\2"3  0    m Arguethattherewasnomeaningfulopportunitytoobject :Defendantwillnot S bedeemedtohavewaivedsentencingerrorwheredefendantdidnothavea  [ meaningfulopportunitytoobject.(Peoplev.Bautista(1998)63Cal.App.4th865,  [ 868871.)3\݌ [(#(# Ќ  "3"  3j2"3  0    Arguethatwhereissuecouldnothavebeendecidedbylowercourtbecause ^  lowercourtwasboundbyauthorityappellantasksappellatecourtto f  overrule,theclaimisproperlyraisedintheappellatecourtinthefirst f instance: Defendantinsiststheplaintiffwaivedthisargumentbyfailingtoraise f itintheCourtofAppeal.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule29(b)(1)[Asamatterof n policy,...theSupremeCourtnormallywillnotconsider:[]...anyissuethatcould n havebeenbutwasnotraisedin...theCourtofAppeal....(_Italics_Ԁadded.)].)The n contentionisspecious.TheCourtofAppealmustfollow,andhasnoauthorityto n overrule,thedecisionsofthiscourt.(AutoEquitySales,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt n (1962)57Cal.2d450,455.)Becausetheissuenowpresentedcouldnothavebeen n! decidedbelow,itisproperlybeforeusinthefirstinstance.(_Moradi_-_Shalal_Ԁv. n# Fireman'sFundIns.Companies(1988)46Cal.3d287,292,fn.1.)# mү#3j݌n% (#(# Ќ  m @' **** # mR#m Ԉ '#"  *d%$ Ї# m#̀