1

Filed 8/19/24 In re I.B. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re I.B., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

F.C. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

E082803

(Super. Ct. No. DPRI2200049)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mona M. Nemat, Judge. 

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.

Janelle B. Price, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and 

Appellants.

Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham, and Julie Jarvi, 

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants and appellants, F.C. and E.C. (the grandparents) purport to appeal 

several of the juvenile court’s orders concerning their minor grandchild, I.B. We dismiss

the bulk of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but otherwise affirm.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2022, plaintiff and respondent the Riverside County Department of 

Social Services (the Department) filed a petition on eight-month-old I.B.’s behalf under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 The petition alleged that I.B.’s mother, who 

lived with the grandparents, had unaddressed mental health issues. Days later, the 

Department removed I.B. from Mother’s care and placed him with his maternal aunt and 

uncle.

I.B. remained in their care while the dependency proceedings continued. By all 

accounts, I.B. thrived in their home. He became emotionally attached and bonded to 

them, and they provided for all of his needs. Within months, they decided they wanted to 

adopt him.

In March 2023, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for the parents

while authorizing supervised weekly visits for the grandparents but denying them 

unsupervised visits. In May 2023, the juvenile court denied the grandparents’ request for 

1

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

de facto parent status while grating the aunt and uncle de facto parent status. The 

grandparents appealed both orders on May 19, 2023 (Case No. E081371).

In July 2023, the grandfather filed a section 388 petition asking that I.B. be placed 

in his care.

On July 31, 2023, the juvenile court held a hearing on several matters, including

the grandfather’s section 388 petition, which the court denied. The court then proceeded 

with a section 366.26 hearing. The court terminated parental rights and freed I.B. for 

adoption by his aunt and uncle.

About a week later, the grandfather filed a JV-570 form petition seeking access to 

I.B.’s dependency records, which he sought in order to prosecute the grandparents’ thenpending appeal (Case No. E081371). The grandparents then filed a second notice of 

appeal in Case No. E081371 on August 9, 2023. However, this court dismissed the 

appeal in September 2023 because the grandparents did not timely file an opening brief. 

The remittitur issued on November 15, 2023.

On November 27, 2023, the juvenile court denied the grandfather’s petition for 

I.B.’s dependency records.

On December 13, 2023, the grandparents, proceeded in pro. per., filed a notice of 

appeal (which became this case). The notice states the grandparents appeal “May 9, 2023 

De Facto Parent and November 27, 2023 Change of placement/adoption/visitation” and 

“March 9, 2023 not allowed a hearing, March 28, visitation modified and not allowed to 

speak, July 31, 2023, not allowed to speak or refute the lies being stated.”
4

III.

DISCUSSION

The grandparents argue the Department failed to properly evaluate their request 

that I.B. be placed in their care, the juvenile court erred by failing to hold a hearing on the 

matter, and the court erroneously denied their section 388 petition. We need not address 

these issues, however, because we lack jurisdiction.

A party must generally file a notice of appeal within 60 days after the date of the 

order being appealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a).) “This is a jurisdictional 

deadline, meaning that courts lack the power to extend it, regardless of whether failure to 

meet the deadline was ‘wilful [sic] or inadvertent,’ ‘reasonable or unreasonable,’ or 

rooted in ‘good faith or not.’” (In re A.R. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 234, 246.) This means that 

absent very limited circumstances not present here, “once the deadline expires, the 

appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal.” (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. 

Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.)

The grandparents filed their notice of appeal in this case on December 13, 2023, 

purporting to appeal from orders issued in March, May, July, and November 27 of 2023. 

However, we lack jurisdiction to review the juvenile court’s orders issued more than 60 

days before December 13, 2023, so we lack jurisdiction to review the juvenile court’s 

orders from March, May, and July of 2023. We therefore dismiss the grandparents’ 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction insofar as the appeal challenges those orders.
5

That leaves the November 27, 2023, order which we have jurisdiction to review. 

The only order in the record issued on that date is the juvenile court’s order denying the 

grandparents’ request for access to I.B.’s dependency records. The grandparents, 

however, do not challenge that order in their opening brief. As a result, they fail to show 

that the order was wrong. To the extent that they challenge that order, they have forfeited 

any argument and we must affirm the order. (See (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon

(1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881.)

In their reply brief, the grandparents argue their failure to timely appeal should be 

excused for two main reasons (1) they represented themselves in the juvenile court and so 

they filed their notices of appeal without counsel, and (2) they timely filed two notices of 

appeal in Case No. E081371. But we have no discretion to excuse the grandparents’ 

failure to timely appeal, even if they represented themselves. (See In re A.R., supra, 11

Cal.5th at p. 246.) And since we dismissed Case No. E081371 and issued the remittitur

in that case months before the grandparents appealed in this case (which means that case 

final and this court loses jurisdiction over it), the grandparents’ filing timely notices of 

appeal in Case No. E081371 does not grant us jurisdiction in this case. (See In re Anna 

S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1500 [“When the remittitur issues, the jurisdiction of the 

reviewing court terminates and the jurisdiction of the trial court reattaches.”].)

In short, we lack jurisdiction to review the orders the grandparents want to 

challenge on appeal. We therefore dismiss the grandparents’ appeal insofar as it 
6

challenges the juvenile court’s orders other than the November 27, 2023, order which we 

affirm.

IV.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s November 27, 2023, order denying the grandparents’ petition 

for access to I.B.’s dependency records is affirmed. The grandparents’ appeal is 

otherwise dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MILLER

J.