IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
November 30, 2011
IN RE J.S., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JO.S., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT; J.S., APPELLANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
In re J.S.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 second appeal in this dependency proceeding, minor J.S. (minor) and her father Jo.S. (father) appeal orders of the juvenile court entered at a review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code,*fn1 §§ 366.21, subd. (e), 395.) Each contends, and respondent San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (the Agency) agrees, reversal is required because minor is emancipated and is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
For the reasons set forth in our opinion in the first appeal, In re J.S. (Oct. 14, 2011, C066908) ____ Cal.App.4th ____ [2011 Cal.App. Lexis 1294] (J.S.-I), we agree. We shall reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We adopt the facts as set forth in our prior opinion in J.S.-I, which recounts minor's temporary removal from and return to mother B.T. (mother); the juvenile court's orders sustaining the petition; mother's compliance with services pending disposition; minor's valid marriage in Nevada; the court's placement of minor with a relative and judgment of disposition; and the court's exit orders in April 2011 dismissing the dependency with custody to mother and denying visitation to father. (J.S.-I, supra, ____ Cal.App.4th ____ [2011 Cal.App. Lexis 1294, at pp. *2-*5].)
This appeal is from the April 2011 exit orders.
In J.S.-I, we found that minor's valid marriage prior to the disposition hearing deprived the juvenile court of jurisdiction to enter a judgment of disposition or any further orders, because minor was emancipated and therefore no longer subject to dependency jurisdiction. We reversed the judgment.
The issue in this appeal is identical to that decided in J.S.-I--whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to make any orders after minor's emancipation. We shall reach the same conclusion as we did in J.S.-I.
When the judgment is vacated, "incidental matters, proceedings or claims based on the judgment are likewise nullified." (9 Witkin, California Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 869, p. 929.) The review hearing and the orders made at that hearing arise from the now reversed and vacated judgment. As the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment of disposition, so it also lacked jurisdiction to enter subsequent orders and reversal is required.
The exit orders are vacated. The juvenile court is directed to cause a copy of this opinion to be placed in the file for family law case No. FL365182.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. NICHOLSON , J.