Court Opinion

ID: 9861302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:52:35.779121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:11.249493
License: Public Domain

GARDNER, P. J.
I concur in the order that writs of mandate issue directing the superior court to review the merits of petitioners’ applications wherein they request the Department to commence wardship proceedings in juvenile hall on behalf of these minors.
However, I would like to stake out our position with some specificity. The above is all we are doing. We are simply holding that these or any other abandoned children come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 et seq.
However, these cases are but the preliminary event. The main event is to follow. That main event is a fight over money—a fight between the county and the state as to just which entity has the financial responsibility for the care of these unfortunate youngsters. That matter will probably come before us as a result of some kind of litigation between the state *832and the county. I just want to make crystal clear that the discussion in our opinion of the responsibility between these two entities refers only to those issues as confined to our basic determination in regard to the responsibility of the juvenile court. I don’t want any party coming in later and claiming law of the case based on anything said in our opinion. We don’t even have the proper parties before us. All we have are some unfortunate children who desperately need the services of a juvenile court pending the big battle between the state and the county as to just who is responsible for their care and maintenance.