Skip to content
Name: In re K.A.
Case #: B227997
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 11/08/2011
Summary

Dispositional orders made on rehearing after deadline provided by statute are not invalid because statute provided no remedy and the delay did not cause prejudice. On August 20, 2010, a juvenile court referee issued dispositional orders. On August 26, DCFS applied for a rehearing, which was granted. The rehearing was continued once and heard on October 29, and dispositional orders were made. Father challenged the rehearing as untimely under rule 5.542(e) which requires that the rehearing be held within 10 days of the order granting it. The appellate court rejected the challenge and affirmed. DCFS requested a hearing within 10 days, and therefore the order did not become final. Even if rule 5.542(e) was violated, the orders were not invalid because father failed to show how he was prejudiced by the delay, given his full participation in the rehearing. Since there was no prejudice, and rule 5.542(e) does not provide any consequences for violation of the dealine, there were no grounds for reversal.