1

Filed 7/6/21 In re J.W. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

In re J.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

C091219

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. Nos. JD238390, 

JD238391, JD238392, 

JD239134)

Appellant M.W., the paternal grandfather of the subject minors, filed a notice of 

appeal from the juvenile court’s November 4, 2019 and November 8, 2019 orders. On 

November 4, 2019, the juvenile court held a contested relative placement hearing and 

found placement with appellant or the paternal great-uncle was not appropriate or in the 

minors’ best interests. Also on November 4, 2019, the juvenile court held a contested 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing [statutory section references that 

follow are to this Code], terminated parental rights and freed the minors for adoption. 

The juvenile court signed the written orders terminating parental rights on November 8, 

2019. 
2

Appellant appears to take issue with the evidence and basis for termination of 

father’s parental rights and with the failure to place the minors with the paternal greatuncle. He also makes passing reference to his own “right to gain kinship” of his 

grandchildren. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

DISCUSSION

I

Standard of Review

A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct and it is “appellant’s 

burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Denham v. Superior Court of 

Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 

95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) As the reviewing court, we will not perform an independent, 

unassisted review of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. 

(McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522.) 

“To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported 

by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. 

[Citation.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) With respect to the citations 

to the record, the appellant must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a 

citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. 

Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [undesignated rule references are to the California 

Rules of Court].) Points raised but not in compliance with these requirements results are 

deemed without merit and forfeited on appeal. (In re S.C., at p. 408; Duarte v. Chino 

Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) The foregoing rules apply to all 

litigants, including those who represent themselves on appeal. (McComber v. Wells, 

supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 523.) Nonetheless, appellant’s brief fails to adhere to these 

rules. 

As we shall explain, none of appellant’s claims are cognizable in this appeal. 
3

II

Judicial Bias

Appellant appears to contend that judicial bias caused father frustration and hurt at 

the jurisdiction hearing and throughout the proceedings, and that father’s parental rights 

were terminated without substantial evidence or cause. He further contends the social 

worker conducted an illegal search of father’s property and falsified some or all of the 

evidence used to “harm” father in court. He requests that the order terminating father’s 

reunification services, entered April 22, 2019, be reversed and father’s custody of the 

minors be reinstated. 

Appellant cannot challenge the April 22, 2019, order in this appeal. Although 

appellant identifies the April 22, 2019, order as the order he requests be reversed and as 

the one that terminated father’s parental rights, that order actually set the section 366.26 

hearing. As such, it is not an appealable order. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) Nor is appellant’s 

notice of appeal, filed January 6, 2020, timely as to that order. (Rule 8.406.)

Moreover, setting aside the untimeliness and nonappealability of any challenge to 

the April 22, 2019 order, and assuming appellant instead seeks reversal of the section 

366.26 order terminating parental rights, which was entered on November 4, 2019, on the

aforementioned bases, appellant, who is not the parent of the minors, lacks standing to 

raise these claims. (In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838 [grandparent 

lacks standing to contest termination of parental rights]; B.C. Cotton, Inc. v. Voss (1995) 

33 Cal.App.4th 929, 947-948 [“courts will not consider issues tendered by a person 

whose rights and interests are not affected”].) 

Most significantly, however, appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely. Although 

the juvenile court did not sign the orders terminating parental rights until November 8, 

2019, they were pronounced in open court on November 4, 2019. Appellant’s notice of 
4

appeal was filed on January 6, 2020 – 63 days after the court’s pronouncement in open 

court. 

The general rule in civil cases is that the time for filing an appeal is the earlier of 

60 days after the clerk mails notice of entry of the judgment, 60 days after an opposing 

party serves notice of entry of judgment, or 180 days after judgment is entered. (Rule 

8.104.) In dependency matters, however, the rule is contained in rule 8.406(a)(1), which 

states: “Except as provided in (2) and (3) [which are not applicable here], a notice of 

appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of 

the order being appealed.” (Rule 8.406(a)(1).) Under this rule, if an appealable judgment 

or order is pronounced in open court, the time for taking an appeal from it begins to run 

when the judgment or order is pronounced. (In re Markaus V. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 

1331, 1337.)

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days from the date the order

terminating parental rights was pronounced in opened court. Late filing of a notice of 

appeal is an absolute bar to appellate court jurisdiction. The timely filing of a notice of

appeal is an absolute prerequisite to the appellate court’s jurisdiction to consider issues 

on appeal. (Adoption of Alexander S. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 857, 864.)

III

Placement with the Paternal Great-Uncle

Appellant also complains that the minors were not placed with the paternal greatuncle at some time during these proceedings and also makes passing reference to his own 

right of kinship. Appellant lacks standing to raise the failure to place the minors with the 

paternal great-uncle. (See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 499.) Assuming 

appellant intends to take issue with the juvenile court’s order after the contested relative 

placement hearing which denied him placement of the minors, the contention is made 

only in passing and without factual or legal analysis, and without citation to the record. 
5

Accordingly, we decline to consider it. (People v. Woods (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 728, 

731; People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282-283.) Moreover, his appeal 

is, again, untimely in this regard. Like the order terminating parental rights, this order 

was made in open court on November 4, 2019. No separate written orders were entered. 

His notice of appeal, filed 63 days thereafter, is untimely.

As for any additional claims which we failed to identify from appellant’s brief, 

which refer to matters that are not part of the record on appeal or are not supported by 

citations to the record, or which are made in passing and without factual or legal analysis, 

we are not required to consider them. (Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 

635, 647; People v. Woods, supra, 260 Cal.App.2d at p. 731; People v. Dougherty, supra, 

138 Cal.App.3d at pp. 282-283; rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).) In any event, the record on 

appeal does not contain an order about which appellant can complain and for which 

appellant’s notice of appeal would be timely filed. 

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

 

HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 

MAURO, J.

 

HOCH, J.