Case Title: In re Phoenix H.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2010-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed 2/10/10 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
IN RE PHOENIX H. et al., Persons Coming ) 
Under the Juvenile Court Law. 
) 
 ___________________________________ ) 
 
) 
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND 
)  
S155556 
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, 
) 
 
 
)  
Ct.App. 4/1 D050304 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
)  
San Diego County 
 
v. 
)  
Super. Ct. No. SJ11392 
 
 
) 
M. H., 
) 
 
) 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
 ___________________________________ ) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
THE COURT: 
 
 
The opinion in this case, filed on December 21, 2009 and appearing at 47 Cal.4th 
835, is modified by adding the following new paragraph as the second full paragraph on 
page 846 of the opinion:   
Citing In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, M.H. argues she was denied 
equal protection of the law because ‘appellate courts around the state have adopted 
different procedures to follow when appointed counsel determines that there are no 
appealable issues under Sade C.’  The decision in Mary G. does not assist M.H.  In Mary 
G., a father who had voluntarily acknowledged paternity in Michigan was denied the 
status of a presumed parent even though he would have qualified as a presumed parent 
had he signed an identical form in California.  The Court of Appeal held that the father 
was denied equal protection of the law because ‘the disparate treatment . . . is based 
solely on geography, and location of a father inside or outside the state bears no more 
relation to the purposes of the presumed father statute than differing locations of fathers 
within California.’  (Id. at p. 200.)  Unlike the father in Mary G., who was entitled to 
presumed parent status upon filing a proper acknowledgment of paternity either inside or 
outside California, M.H. was entitled to personally file a brief only upon a showing of 
good cause.  Because M.H. made no such showing, the Court of Appeal did not abuse its 
discretion.  (Cf. People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 838 [exercise of a 
prosecutor’s discretion does not violate equal protection principles].)   
There is no change in the judgment.