In?re?Richard?S.?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?857?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?2;?819?P.2d?843
[No.?S016631.?Dec?2,?1991.]In?re?RICHARD?S.,?a?Person?Coming?Under?the?Juvenile?Court?Law.
PEDRO?R.?SILVA,?as?Chief?Probation?Officer,?etc.,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?LORI?S.,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?97327,?Kristine?Mackin?McCarthy,?Temporary?Judge.fn.?*?)
(Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Dallas?Sacher,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Margaritay?Lopez?Orozco,?under?appointment?by?the?Court?of?Appeal,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
Steven?M.?Woodside,?County?Counsel,?Vanessa?Zecher?Cain?and?Diane?L.?Bennett,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[54?Cal.3d?860]
Leo?Himmelsbach,?District?Attorney,?Daniel?A.?Palmer?and?Penelope?M.?Blake,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?for?Minor.
OPINION
MOSK,?J.
The?question?before?us?is?whether?a?referee?lacks?jurisdiction?to?enter?a?final?order?in?a?juvenile?matter?if?the?superior?court?fails?to?strictly?follow?the?provisions?of?rule?244?of?the?California?Rules?of?Court?in?appointing?the?referee?as?a?temporary?judge.?We?determine?that?error?in?failing?to?follow?rule?244?is?not?jurisdictional?when?the?parties?have?stipulated?to?trial?by?temporary?judge?and?the?requirements?of?article?VI,?section?21?of?the?California?Constitution?are?otherwise?met.
I
During?a?custody?dispute?in?the?family?court,?when?it?appeared?that?the?family?court?services?custody?evaluation?would?recommend?that?father?should?receive?custody?of?the?child,?the?child?made?an?accusation?of?sexual?abuse?against?father.?The?county?filed?a?petition?under?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?300?to?declare?the?child?a?dependent?ward?of?the?juvenile?court.
On?April?22,?1988,?Kristine?Mackin?McCarthy,?referee?of?the?Juvenile?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?ordered?that?the?child?be?placed?in?protective?custody?in?juvenile?hall.?The?form?order,?clearly?referring?to?McCarthy?as?a?referee,?set?a?hearing?in?the?matter?in?department?IV?of?the?juvenile?court?for?May?13,?1988.
On?May?13,?1988,?the?matter?was?continued?by?Referee?McCarthy.?The?clerk’s?transcript?notation?of?this?hearing?referred?to?her?as?a?judge.?The?clerk’s?transcript?also?contains?a?form?stipulation?dated?May?20,?1988,?in?which?the?attorney?representing?the?child,?and?the?two?attorneys?representing?mother?and?father,?signed?the?written?stipulation?that?McCarthy?”be?appointed?Judge?Pro?Tempore?of?the?Superior?Court?to?try?this?action.”?The?form?calls?for?the?signature?of?a?judge?of?the?superior?court?approving?the?referee’s?appointment?as?a?temporary?judge,?but?no?such?signature?appears.?McCarthy?entered?her?signature?indicating?that?she?had?subscribed?to?the?oath?of?office.
The?jurisdictional?hearing?commenced?on?November?4,?1988,?the?court?reporter?noting?that?the?judge?presiding?was?the?Honorable?Kristine?[54?Cal.3d?861]?McCarthy,?”Judge?Pro?Tempore.”fn.?1At?the?conclusion?of?the?hearing?on?Monday,?November?21,?1988,?at?which?the?court?found?the?child?a?dependent?ward?of?the?court?and?ordered?him?placed?in?his?father’s?custody,?the?court?advised?the?parties?of?their?right?of?appeal?to?the?Court?of?Appeal.fn.?2
The?clerk’s?transcript?also?contains?another?form?stipulation,?dated?November?10,?1988,?and?stamped?as?filed?on?November?22,?1988,?in?which?counsel?for?mother?and?father?signed?a?stipulation?to?McCarthy?presiding?as?”Judge?Pro?Tempore.”?The?portion?of?the?form?noting?that?the?superior?court?ordered?McCarthy?appointed?as?a?temporary?judge?is?signed?by?a?judge?of?the?superior?court,?and?McCarthy?again?entered?her?signature?indicating?that?she?had?taken?the?oath?of?office.
Mother?appealed,?arguing,?among?other?things,?that?the?court’s?order?was?void?because?of?defects?in?the?stipulation?and?order?authorizing?the?referee?to?sit?as?a?temporary?judge.?The?Court?of?Appeal?rejected?these?arguments?and?affirmed?the?judgment.
II
Article?VI,?section?21?of?the?California?Constitution?provides:?”On?stipulation?of?the?parties?litigant?the?court?may?order?a?cause?to?be?tried?by?a?temporary?judge?who?is?a?member?of?the?State?Bar,?sworn?and?empowered?to?act?until?final?determination?of?the?cause.”
Rule?244?of?the?California?Rules?of?Court?(hereafter?rule?244)?amplifies?these?requirements,?particularly?by?providing?for?written?stipulations.?It?provides?in?pertinent?part:?”The?stipulation?of?the?parties?litigant?that?a?case?may?be?tried?by?a?temporary?judge?shall?be?in?writing?….?It?shall?be?submitted?for?approval?to?the?presiding?judge?or?to?the?supervising?judge?of?a?branch?court.?The?order?designating?the?temporary?judge?shall?be?endorsed?upon?the?stipulation,?which?shall?then?be?filed.?The?temporary?judge?shall?take?and?subscribe?the?oath?of?office,?which?shall?be?attached?to?the?stipulation?and?order?of?designation,?and?the?case?shall?then?be?assigned?to?the?temporary?judge?for?trial.?After?the?oath?is?filed,?the?temporary?judge?may?proceed?with?the?hearing,?trial?and?determination?of?the?case.”?[54?Cal.3d?862] [1a]?Mother?argues?that?because?the?order?signed?by?a?superior?court?judge?authorizing?the?referee?to?act?as?a?temporary?judge?was?not?filed?until?the?conclusion?of?the?dispositional?hearing,?the?referee?lacked?jurisdiction?to?enter?a?final?order.fn.?3?She?argues?that?under?article?VI,?section?21?of?the?California?Constitution?(hereafter?article?VI,?section?21),?a?juvenile?court?referee?may?not?act?as?a?temporary?judge?absent?a?written?order?of?the?superior?court.?The?requirements?of?rule?244,?she?maintains,?are?of?constitutional?stature,?so?that?failure?to?meet?those?requirements?is?jurisdictional?error.?She?relies?on?the?familiar?rule?that?the?parties?cannot?confer?jurisdiction?by?consent.fn.?4
[2]?At?the?outset?we?dispose?of?the?claim?that?the?failure?of?the?clerk?to?file?the?written?order?authorizing?the?referee?to?sit?as?a?temporary?judge?before?the?entry?of?the?jurisdictional?order?was?constitutional?error?within?the?terms?of?article?VI,?section?21.?That?section?simply?provides?that?a?court?may?order?a?cause?to?be?tried?by?a?temporary?judge.?It?appears?to?us?that?the?court?fulfilled?this?function?by?assigning?the?matter?for?trial?before?a?referee?the?parties?had?stipulated?would?sit?as?a?temporary?judge?and?who?had?subscribed?to?the?oath?of?office.Mother?objects?that?the?history?of?the?provision?indicates?a?written?order?must?precede?any?judicial?act?by?the?temporary?judge.?She?points?out?that?article?VI,?section?21?is?based?on?the?now?repealed?article?VI,?section?5,?which?provided?that?the?selection?of?a?temporary?judge?”shall?be?subject?to?the?approval?and?order?of?the?court.”?As?the?1966?revision?of?the?provision?was?not?intended?to?achieve?a?substantive?change,?but?simply?to?restate?the?provision?in?modern?terms?(People?v.?Tijerina?(1969)?1?Cal.3d?41,?48?[81?Cal.Rptr.?264,?459?P.2d?680]),?she?reasons?that?a?requirement?of?a?prior?written?order?survives?in?the?current?constitutional?language.?We?do?not?accept?her?premise,?however,?that?the?original?language?required?a?prior?written?order,?or?any?act?beyond?the?assignment?of?a?cause?for?trial?before?an?[54?Cal.3d?863]?eligible?person?who?sits?by?stipulation?as?a?temporary?judge.?In?any?event,?here?the?court?did?sign?a?written?order?before?the?referee?entered?her?order.
Mother?makes?a?similar?argument?to?indicate?that?the?requirements?of?rule?244?are?jurisdictional.?She?notes?that?the?former?article?VI,?section?5?of?the?Constitution?provided?the?appointment?of?a?temporary?judge?”shall?also?be?subject?to?such?regulations?and?orders?as?may?be?prescribed?by?the?Judicial?Council.”?Though?this?language?was?omitted?from?the?current?provision,?she?argues?there?was?no?intent?to?diminish?the?authority?of?the?Judicial?Council,?but?rather?the?language?was?omitted?because?”the?Judicial?Council’s?general?rulemaking?authority?[was]?continued?in?Section?6?of?Article?VI?and?a?separate?statement?in?[section?21?was]?unnecessary.”?(Judicial?Council?of?Cal.,?Ann.?Rep.?(1967)?p.?89.)
[1b]?Even?interpreting?the?constitutional?language?in?light?of?the?earlier?provision,?we?do?not?accept?the?premise?that?because?the?Constitution?provided?the?Judicial?Council?was?to?establish?rules?with?respect?to?the?appointment?of?temporary?judges,?the?Constitution?intended?to?provide?that?failure?to?follow?those?rules?precisely?is?error?depriving?the?tribunal?of?jurisdiction.?Neither?the?former?nor?the?current?constitutional?language?suggests?this,?and?no?other?authority?has?been?called?to?our?attention?to?indicate?that?the?Constitution?was?intended?to?make?Judicial?Council?rules?on?this?point?jurisdictional.?The?Judicial?Council?is?simply?empowered?to?”adopt?rules?for?court?administration,?practice?and?procedure,?not?inconsistent?with?statute?….”?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?VI,???6.)Therefore,?although?there?is?doubt?that?Judicial?Council?rules?may?affect?jurisdiction?in?this?instance,?for?purposes?of?discussion?we?shall?assume?that?they?may.?[3]?The?rules?have?the?force?of?statute?to?the?extent?that?they?are?not?inconsistent?with?legislative?enactments?and?constitutional?provisions.?(Albermont?Petroleum?Ltd.?v.?Cunningham?(1960)?186?Cal.App.2d?84,?89?[9?Cal.Rptr.?405],?questioned?on?other?grounds?in?Mann?v.?Cracchiolo?(1985)?38?Cal.3d?18,?28-29?[210?Cal.Rptr.?762,?694?P.2d?1134];?see?also?People?v.?Wright?(1982)?30?Cal.3d?705,?712?[180?Cal.Rptr.?196,?639?P.2d?267].)?As?with?any?other?statute,?the?question?whether?failure?to?comply?with?the?rule?deprives?the?tribunal?of?jurisdiction?is?one?of?legislative?intent.?(Averill?v.?Lincoln?(1944)?24?Cal.2d?761,?764?[151?P.2d?119]?[rule?requiring?that?party?”shall”?serve?certain?notice?on?appeal?is?not?jurisdictional];?see?also?Jacobs?v.?State?Bar?(1977)?20?Cal.3d?191,?198?[141?Cal.Rptr.?812,?570?P.2d?1230];?Morris?v.?County?of?Marin?(1977)?18?Cal.3d?901,?910?[136?Cal.Rptr.?251,?559?P.2d?606].)
The?contention?that?the?requirements?of?rule?244?are?jurisdictional?is?one?that?has?divided?the?Courts?of?Appeal.?In?two?cases,?the?Fifth?District?has?[54?Cal.3d?864]?held?that?failure?to?follow?the?procedure?set?out?in?rule?244?is?jurisdictional?error?requiring?reversal.?The?first?case,?In?re?Damian?V.?(1988)?197?Cal.App.3d?933?[243?Cal.Rptr.?185],?involved?a?proceeding?to?terminate?parental?rights.?Although?the?father?and?the?county?counsel?stipulated?to?trial?by?temporary?judge,?and?the?superior?court?ordered?the?appointment?of?the?temporary?judge,?neither?the?mother?(who?failed?to?appear)?nor?the?minors?joined?in?the?stipulation?and?the?temporary?judge?never?took?the?oath?of?office.?The?reviewing?court?observed?that?rule?244?”is?couched?in?mandatory?language?and?suggests?failure?to?comply?with?the?specific?conditions?precedent?would?nullify?or?void?any?subsequent?rulings?or?orders?by?the?temporary?judge.”?(Id.?at?p.?938.)?The?second?case,?In?re?Heather?P.?(1988)?203?Cal.App.3d?1214?[250?Cal.Rptr.?468],?reached?the?same?conclusion?in?the?context?of?a?dependency?proceeding?brought?under?section?300?of?the?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code.?There,?although?there?was?an?oral?stipulation?on?behalf?of?the?mother?and?minor?to?trial?by?a?temporary?judge,?there?was?no?written?stipulation?or?approval?of?the?stipulation?by?the?superior?court,?and?it?appeared?that?the?temporary?judge?had?not?taken?the?oath?of?office.?Simply?noting?that?Damian?V.?had?held?that?the?rule?244?was?mandatory,?the?court?concluded?”any?orders?or?rulings?by?the?temporary?judge?would?necessarily?be?void?as?the?temporary?judge?would?have?been?without?constitutional?or?statutory?authority?to?act.”?(203?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1225.)
The?better?view,?however,?is?represented?by?those?cases?that?have?reached?a?contrary?conclusion?with?respect?to?rule?244,?as?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?the?present?case?determined.?In?In?re?Robert?S.?(1988)?197?Cal.App.3d?1260?[243?Cal.Rptr.?459],?a?termination?of?parental?rights?case,?the?First?District?held?that?because?article?VI,?section?21?contemplates?trial?by?temporary?judge?”upon?stipulation?of?the?parties,”?a?retired?juvenile?court?referee?had?power?to?preside?under?an?oral?stipulation?of?the?parties,?regardless?of?rule?244?and?its?requirement?of?a?written?stipulation.?It?pointed?out?that?far?from?requiring?a?written?stipulation,?the?Constitution?permits?stipulation?by?conduct?of?the?parties.?(See?maj.?opn.?in?In?re?Horton?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?82?[284?Cal.Rptr.?305,?813?P.2d?1335].)?It?agreed?with?language?in?People?v.?Oaxaca?(1974)?39?Cal.App.3d?153,?164?[114?Cal.Rptr.?178],?objecting?that?it?would?be?”?’?”intolerable?to?permit?a?party?to?play?fast?and?loose?with?the?administration?of?justice?by?deliberately?standing?by?without?making?an?objection?of?which?he?is?aware?and?thereby?permitting?the?proceeding?to?go?to?a?conclusion?which?he?may?acquiesce?in,?if?favorable,?and?which?he?may?avoid,?if?not.”?’?”
Further,?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?Robert?S.?rejected?the?notion?that?rule?244?imposes?jurisdictional?requirements,?declaring?that?the?1966?amendment?to?article?VI,?section?21?eliminated?language?that?formerly?had?expressly?referred?to?Judicial?Council?rules.?”[T]he?language?of?former?article?VI,?[54?Cal.3d?865]?section?5,?expressly?providing?that?the?selection?of?a?judge?pro?tempore?is?’subject?to?such?regulations?and?orders?as?may?be?prescribed?by?the?Judicial?Council,’?was?eliminated.?Based?on?the?omission?of?the?requirement?that?the?selection?of?a?temporary?judge?be?subject?to?the?rules?of?the?Judicial?Council,?we?conclude?that?compliance?with?rule?244(a)?is?not?a?constitutional?prerequisite?to?empowering?a?temporary?judge?to?act.”?(In?re?Robert?S.,?supra,?197?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1265;?see?also?In?re?P.?I.?(1989)?207?Cal.App.3d?316,?322?[254?Cal.Rptr.?774]?[accord,?applying?Robert?S.?in?Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,???602?proceeding].)
The?Fourth?District?in?In?re?Lamonica?H.?(1990)?220?Cal.App.3d?634?[270?Cal.Rptr.?60]?(see?also?In?re?Samkirtana?S.?(1990)?222?Cal.App.3d?1475,?1481?[272?Cal.Rptr.?489],?accord)?also?noted?the?deletion?from?the?Constitution?of?language?referring?to?the?Judicial?Council?rules,?but?focused?more?on?an?analysis?of?whether?the?rule?itself?was?intended?to?be?mandatory?or?directory.?It?is?this?analysis?that?we?find?dispositive.?[1c]?We?conclude?that?the?court?in?In?re?Damian?V.,?supra,?197?Cal.App.3d?933,?erred?in?assuming?that?because?rule?244?uses?the?term?”shall,”?failure?to?follow?the?rule?precisely?deprives?the?court?of?jurisdiction.
[4a]?A?statutory?requirement?may?impose?on?the?state?a?duty?to?act?in?a?particular?way,?and?yet?failure?to?do?so?may?not?void?the?governmental?action?taken?in?violation?of?the?duty.?(Morris?v.?County?of?Marin,?supra,?18?Cal.3d?901,?908;?Pulcifer?v.?County?of?Alameda?(1946)?29?Cal.2d?258,?262-263?[175?P.2d?1];?Mitchell?v.?City?of?Indio?(1987)?196?Cal.App.3d?881,?888-889?[242?Cal.Rptr.?235];?In?re?Charles?B.?(1986)?189?Cal.App.3d?1204,?1209?[235?Cal.Rptr.?1].)?This?distinction?is?generally?expressed?in?terms?of?calling?the?duty?”mandatory”?or?”directory.”?”[T]he?’directory’?or?’mandatory’?designation?does?not?refer?to?whether?a?particular?statutory?requirement?is?’permissive’?or?’obligatory,’?but?instead?simply?denotes?whether?the?failure?to?comply?with?a?particular?procedural?step?will?or?will?not?have?the?effect?of?invalidating?the?governmental?action?to?which?the?procedural?requirement?relates.”?(Morris?v.?County?of?Marin,?supra,?18?Cal.3d?at?p.?908.) [1d]?We?are?persuaded?by?the?decision?in?In?re?Lamonica?H.,?supra,?220?Cal.App.3d?634,?that?rule?244?is?directory?rather?than?mandatory?to?the?extent?that?it?imposes?requirements?beyond?those?expressed?in?article?VI,?section?21,?and?that?no?purpose?would?be?served?by?interpreting?it?as?intended?to?void?any?action?taken?when?the?requirements?of?the?rule?were?not?precisely?fulfilled.?We?must?go?beyond?the?use?of?the?term?”shall”?in?the?rules?and?determine?legislative?intent.?[4b]?In?determining?whether?statutory?language?is?mandatory?or?directory,?”?'[i]n?the?absence?of?express?language,?the?intent?must?be?gathered?from?the?terms?of?the?statute?construed?as?a?whole,?from?the?nature?and?character?of?the?act?to?be?done,?and?from?the?[54?Cal.3d?866]?consequences?which?would?follow?the?doing?or?failure?to?do?the?particular?act?at?the?required?time.?[Citation.]?When?the?object?is?to?subserve?some?public?purpose,?the?provision?may?be?held?directory?or?mandatory?as?will?best?accomplish?that?purpose?[citation].?…’?”?(Morris?v.?County?of?Marin,?supra,?18?Cal.3d?at?p.?910,?quoting?Pulcifer?v.?County?of?Alameda,?supra,?29?Cal.2d?at?p.?262;?see?also?People?v.?McGee?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?948,?958-959?[140?Cal.Rptr.?657,?568?P.2d?382].)The?court?in?Lamonica?H.?found?that?rule?244?was?intended?to?serve?administrative?purposes:?”Where?a?party?to?a?proceeding?heard?by?a?referee?has?in?fact?expressly?or?impliedly?agreed?that?the?referee?may?sit?as?temporary?judge?pursuant?to?article?VI,?section?21?of?the?Constitution,?it?is?difficult?for?us?to?fathom?what?legitimate?interest?the?party?has?in?the?method?by?which?his?agreement?is?memorialized.?Whether?consent?is?oral,?written,?express?or?implied,?if?in?fact?a?party?agrees?to?proceed?before?a?referee?and?thereafter?receives?a?ruling?on?the?merits?from?the?referee,?his?reasonable?expectations?have?been?fulfilled.?Thus?the?detailed?procedure?set?forth?in?rule?244?appears?to?us?designed?to?serve?collateral?interests?of?the?judicial?system.?By?requiring?a?written?instrument,?the?rule?prevents?disputes?as?to?whether?parties?have?in?fact?consented?and?the?scope?of?their?consent.?[Citation.]?By?further?requiring?the?written?approval?of?a?supervising?judge?and?an?oath,?the?rule?insures?that?the?activities?of?temporary?judges?are?monitored?and?do?not?impair?the?administration?of?the?trial?courts.?These?interests?are?entirely?unrelated?to?[the?litigant’s]?interest?in?having?his?dispute?heard?in?a?competent?and?unbiased?tribunal.”?(In?re?Lamonica?H.,?supra,?220?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?644.)
[1e]?In?sum,?we?agree?with?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?this?case,?and?with?the?decisions?in?In?re?Robert?S.,?supra,?197?Cal.App.3d?1260,?In?re?P.?I.,?supra,?207?Cal.App.3d?316,?and?In?re?Lamonica?H.,?supra,?220?Cal.App.3d?634,?that?when?the?requirements?of?article?VI,?section?21?are?otherwise?met,?the?parties?by?their?stipulation?to?trial?by?a?referee?sitting?as?a?temporary?judge,?waive?any?claim?of?error?on?the?basis?of?failure?to?strictly?comply?with?that?rule.fn.?5Mother?objects?that?such?a?conclusion?violates?the?general?rule?that?parties?cannot?confer?jurisdiction?by?consent.?She?overlooks?the?fact?that?the?superior?court?has?subject?matter?jurisdiction?over?the?cause?and?ordered?it?tried?before?the?referee?as?a?temporary?judge.?The?stipulation?of?the?parties?simply?confers?judicial?power?on?the?referee?to?act?as?a?temporary?judge?within?the?superior?court.?(See?In?re?Perrone?C.?(1979)?26?Cal.3d?49,?57?[160?Cal.Rptr.?[54?Cal.3d?867]?704,?603?P.2d?1300].)?This?is?not?a?situation?in?which?the?parties?attempt?to?confer?jurisdiction?that?is?constitutionally?lacking.
III
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?affirmed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?*.?Pursuant?to?California?Constitution,?article?VI,?section?21.
FN?1.?The?evidence?at?the?hearing?was?directed?to?the?question?whether?mother?or?father?should?receive?custody;?it?was?undisputed?that?the?child?had?serious?emotional?problems?but?little?effort?was?made?to?prove?an?episode?of?sexual?abuse.
FN?2.?The?hearings?on?November?4,?10,?14?and?21?were?technically?jurisdictional?hearings,?though?father?offered?to?stipulate?to?the?court’s?jurisdiction?under?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?300,?and?although?the?evidence?was?directed?to?the?issue?of?disposition.?At?the?conclusion?of?closing?argument?on?November?21,?the?court?noted?its?understanding?that?there?was?no?dispute?over?jurisdiction,?and?that?it?would?enter?a?dispositional?order?based?on?the?evidence?it?had?heard?at?the?jurisdictional?phase.
FN?3.?A?referee,?of?course,?has?jurisdiction?to?enter?a?dispositional?order?as?a?referee,?subject?to?review?by?the?superior?court.?(Welf.?&?Inst.?Code,????248,?252.)
FN?4.?In?the?Court?of?Appeal,?and?in?the?petition?for?review,?mother?argued?that?the?stipulation?to?trial?of?this?juvenile?dependency?matter?before?a?referee?sitting?as?a?temporary?judge?was?defective?in?other?respects:?1)?it?was?not?prepared?until?after?the?referee?had?already?made?an?order?detaining?the?child?in?juvenile?hall?and?made?an?order?continuing?the?jurisdictional?hearing;?2)?it?lacked?the?signature?of?counsel?who?was?present?and?representing?the?child;?and?3)?the?referee’s?office?address?did?not?appear?on?the?form.?Our?order?granting?review?specified?the?issue?as?whether?orders?made?by?a?juvenile?court?referee?are?valid?where?the?record?does?not?show?strict?compliance?with?the?court?rule?regarding?stipulations?for?temporary?judges.?Counsel?for?mother?chose?to?limit?briefing?on?the?merits?to?the?issue?of?the?failure?of?the?superior?court?to?timely?file?an?order?authorizing?the?referee?to?sit?as?a?temporary?judge.?Accordingly,?we?respond?only?to?that?question.
FN?5.?To?the?extent?they?are?inconsistent?with?this?opinion,?the?decisions?in?In?re?Heather?P.,?supra,?203?Cal.App.3d?1214,?and?In?re?Damian?V.,?supra,?197?Cal.App.3d?933,?are?disapproved.