IN RE: MARILYN H. (1992)

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

IN RE: MARILYN H., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEBBIE H., Defendant and Appellant.

No. F015312.

Decided: February 27, 1992

Kimball J.P. Sargeant, Sacramento, for defendant and appellant. Lucretia H. Parks, Berkeley, for minors. B.C. Barmann, County Counsel, Stacy Inman, Deputy, Bakersfield, for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING

In a petition for rehearing filed on behalf of appellant, we are directed for the first time to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366, subdivision (a) and are urged to find that this section authorizes, if not compels, consideration of reunification as an option under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (b). We note that “[c]ounsel are not permitted to argue their cases in a piecemeal fashion and points not previously argued will not be considered where raised for the first time on petition for rehearing.” (Smith v. Crocker First Nat. Bank (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 832, 837, 314 P.2d 237.)

While given the discretion to relax the above-stated rule upon a showing of good cause (cf. Sime v. Malouf (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 82, 116, 212 P.2d 946), we find no good cause shown here. Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

BUCKLEY, Associate Justice.

BEST, P.J., and MARTIN, J., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network