Skip to content
Name: Ricardo V. v. Superior Court
Case #: B194013
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/01/2007
Summary

Referee’s order was not automatically vacated upon grant of party’s request for rehearing. In July, 2006, a dependency court referee ordered the minor be placed permanently in the father’s home. Minor’s counsel timely sought a rehearing before a judge, which was granted on August 7. The dependency court judge subsequently set a rehearing date of August 31, and stated that upon the grant of rehearing, the case’s status reverted back to where it was before the referee’s order (i.e. that the minor stayed with her caregivers.) Father appealed, contending that the judge erred in vacating the referee’s order pending rehearing, because section 250 prohibits a judge from vacating or modifying an order until after the rehearing. The Department contended that the language of section 250 should be read to mean that a referee’s order may be vacated by a judge’s order at any point after a rehearing is granted. The appellate court acknowledged that although there was confusion in the law, section 250 should be read straightforwardly to give force and effect to a referee’s rehearable order until the matter covered by the order actually has been reheard.