Morris v. Ursula H.

California Court of Appeal

Morris v. Ursula H.

126 Cal. App. 3d 1048, 178 Cal. Rptr. 205, 1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2496

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 21, 1981

DocketCiv. No. 50160

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 Cal. App. 3d 1048 (Morris v. Ursula H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. Ursula H., 126 Cal. App. 3d 1048, 178 Cal. Rptr. 205, 1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2496 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

BARRY-DEAL, J.

Ursula H. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court adjudging her minor son, Jesse H., a dependent child of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, removing the minor from appellant’s custody, and approving placement of the minor in a foster home.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief in which he set forth the facts of the case. He did not argue against his client, but advised the court he found no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. We have examined the record and have found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071].) Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in her own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from appellant.

[1050]*1050Judgment is affirmed.

Scott, Acting P. J., and Anello, J.,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

BARRY-DEAL, J.

Ursula H. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court adjudging her minor son, Jesse H., a dependent child of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, removing the minor from appellant’s custody, and approving placement of the minor in a foster home.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief in which he set forth the facts of the case. He did not argue against his client, but advised the court he found no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. We have examined the record and have found no arguable issue. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071].) Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in her own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from appellant.

[1050]*1050Judgment is affirmed.

Scott, Acting P. J., and Anello, J.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Cal. App. 3d 1048, 178 Cal. Rptr. 205, 1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-ursula-h-calctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack