Legal Opinion

Walter W. v. Jacqueline W.

California Supreme Court

Decided November 14, 2002No. S100745PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KENNARD, J.

In 1978, this court held that a reviewing court is required “to appoint counsel for any indigent parent appealing from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to Civil Code [former] section 232.” (In re Jacqueline H. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 170, 177 [145 Cal.Rptr. 548, 577 P.2d 683], fn. omitted, italics added (Jacqueline H).) We concluded that an indigent parent’s right to appointed appellate counsel was “implicit in the Legislature’s entire statutory scheme for the removal of children from the custody and control of their parents.” (Id. at p. 175.) In 1984, the Legislature…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. People v. GardeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. In Re Marilyn HCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Shoemaker v. MyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. People v. CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. People v. ValenciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Silverbrand v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  3. O'GRADY v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Alch v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  5. People v. SanchezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API