Opinion
MANELLA, J.
Appellant Jasmin S. (Mother) filed this appeal after the juvenile court’s December 4, 2012 order terminated her parental rights over her infant daughter X.Z. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
Mother seeks to revive issues arising out of the court’s decision to terminate her reunification services at the September 12, 2011 six-month review hearing based on its understanding that Mother would be incarcerated for a period that exceeded the maximum reunification time permitted by statute. She contends reasonable reunification services were not provided prior to September 2011, that the caseworker misled the court about when she was likely to be released from prison, and that the court failed to make statutorily mandated findings.
Mother does not dispute that orders terminating reunification services are ordinarily reviewable solely by way of writ, or that the court provided notice at the September 2011 hearing of the writ review requirement. She contends she is entitled to raise issues related to the reunification period in this proceeding because the notice the court provided did not inform her of the deadline to file a notice of intent to seek a writ. In the published portion of the opinion, we conclude that Mother received sufficient notice of the writ requirement to preclude her from raising issues pertaining to the September 2011 order at this late date. In the unpublished portion, we discuss the issues raised with respect to the September 2011 order and conclude none would require reversal in any event. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2011, the family home was raided by police and a large quantity of methamphetamine and chemicals for the manufacture of methamphetamine were found.
X.Z., then two months old, was detained by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), along with her two half siblings.
After a brief period in foster care, X.Z. was placed with Mother’s sister, Conseulo M. A few days after the detention hearing, Mother was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine and child endangerment.
On February 16, 2011, the caseworker reported that Mother’s case was about to be submitted to the district attorney’s office for felony filing consideration. The court ordered a supplemental report to address the status of both parents’ criminal cases before the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, but the caseworker was unable to obtain further information.
At the March 14, 2011 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the court found that Mother and the father “created a detrimental and endangering home environment for the children” by (1) “possessing] toxic, flammable, hazardous chemicals, used in the manufacture of methamphetamine in the children’s home, within access of the children” and exposing the children to such chemicals; (2) keeping eight and one-half pounds of methamphetamine in the children’s home, within access of the children; and (3) exposing the children to illicit drug trafficking in the home and in their presence. At the same hearing, the court addressed disposition for Mother and ordered reunification services. Mother’s plan required her to participate in a parenting class and individual counseling to address case issues and drug awareness.
On April 20, 2011, a new caseworker met with Mother, then incarcerated at Twin Towers Correctional Facility. Mother advised her that the facility did not offer any programs for parents, and that she would be unable to make progress on the reunification plan until she was transferred to a state prison. Mother further reported that she anticipated receiving a four-year sentence and serving half or less. On June 8, the caseworker talked to Mother’s probation officer, who reported he was working on the probation report and that Mother was likely to face a sentence of three to six years.
A few days later, on June 17, Consuelo told the caseworker she had spoken with Mother and that Mother had said she was going to serve 14 months in state prison and would enroll in classes once she arrived at the prison.
In mid-July, Mother was transferred to the California Institution for Women. In August, the caseworker left a message with Mother’s correctional counselor asking for Mother’s release date, but received no return call.
The September 2011 report, filed in advance of the six-month review hearing, stated that in June, Mother had been convicted of possession of a controlled substance for sale and child endangerment and that the court had imposed sentences of three years for the former crime and four years for the latter. The report did not indicate whether the sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently and gave no estimate of Mother’s release date. It described the caseworker’s unsuccessful effort to obtain Mother’s precise release date from the correctional counselor. The report stated that maternal relatives were bringing X.Z. for prison visits, but that due to her incarceration, Mother had been unable to participate in court-ordered programs. The report said it was “highly unlikely” Mother would be able to reunify with her children, even if additional reunification services were ordered. Therefore, it was recommended that reunification services be terminated.
At the September 12, 2011 six-month review hearing, the court stated it was inclined to terminate reunification services with respect to X.Z. due to her age (less than a year old).
Counsel for Mother stated: “I understand Mother will be incarcerated longer than the statutory period of reunification; however, I’m going to enter an objection today to terminating her services.” The court expressed its understanding that both parents objected, but found that “since both parents will be incarcerated longer than the reunification period there is not a substantial probability that [X.Z.] may be returned to her parents by the 12-month permanency hearing.” The court further found that the parents were unable to “complete any of the disposition case plan” due to their incarceration or to “demonstrate[] the capacity or
ability to complete the objectives of the treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional health.” The court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 9, 2012. The minute order stated that the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the minors to the physical custody of the parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to their physical or emotional well-being, that DCFS had complied with the case plan, that Mother was not in compliance with the case plan, and that reasonable services had been provided to meet the needs of the minors.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion
MANELLA, J.
Appellant Jasmin S. (Mother) filed this appeal after the juvenile court’s December 4, 2012 order terminated her parental rights over her infant daughter X.Z. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
Mother seeks to revive issues arising out of the court’s decision to terminate her reunification services at the September 12, 2011 six-month review hearing based on its understanding that Mother would be incarcerated for a period that exceeded the maximum reunification time permitted by statute. She contends reasonable reunification services were not provided prior to September 2011, that the caseworker misled the court about when she was likely to be released from prison, and that the court failed to make statutorily mandated findings.
Mother does not dispute that orders terminating reunification services are ordinarily reviewable solely by way of writ, or that the court provided notice at the September 2011 hearing of the writ review requirement. She contends she is entitled to raise issues related to the reunification period in this proceeding because the notice the court provided did not inform her of the deadline to file a notice of intent to seek a writ. In the published portion of the opinion, we conclude that Mother received sufficient notice of the writ requirement to preclude her from raising issues pertaining to the September 2011 order at this late date. In the unpublished portion, we discuss the issues raised with respect to the September 2011 order and conclude none would require reversal in any event. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 2011, the family home was raided by police and a large quantity of methamphetamine and chemicals for the manufacture of methamphetamine were found.
X.Z., then two months old, was detained by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), along with her two half siblings.
After a brief period in foster care, X.Z. was placed with Mother’s sister, Conseulo M. A few days after the detention hearing, Mother was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine and child endangerment.
On February 16, 2011, the caseworker reported that Mother’s case was about to be submitted to the district attorney’s office for felony filing consideration. The court ordered a supplemental report to address the status of both parents’ criminal cases before the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, but the caseworker was unable to obtain further information.
At the March 14, 2011 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the court found that Mother and the father “created a detrimental and endangering home environment for the children” by (1) “possessing] toxic, flammable, hazardous chemicals, used in the manufacture of methamphetamine in the children’s home, within access of the children” and exposing the children to such chemicals; (2) keeping eight and one-half pounds of methamphetamine in the children’s home, within access of the children; and (3) exposing the children to illicit drug trafficking in the home and in their presence. At the same hearing, the court addressed disposition for Mother and ordered reunification services. Mother’s plan required her to participate in a parenting class and individual counseling to address case issues and drug awareness.
On April 20, 2011, a new caseworker met with Mother, then incarcerated at Twin Towers Correctional Facility. Mother advised her that the facility did not offer any programs for parents, and that she would be unable to make progress on the reunification plan until she was transferred to a state prison. Mother further reported that she anticipated receiving a four-year sentence and serving half or less. On June 8, the caseworker talked to Mother’s probation officer, who reported he was working on the probation report and that Mother was likely to face a sentence of three to six years.
A few days later, on June 17, Consuelo told the caseworker she had spoken with Mother and that Mother had said she was going to serve 14 months in state prison and would enroll in classes once she arrived at the prison.
In mid-July, Mother was transferred to the California Institution for Women. In August, the caseworker left a message with Mother’s correctional counselor asking for Mother’s release date, but received no return call.
The September 2011 report, filed in advance of the six-month review hearing, stated that in June, Mother had been convicted of possession of a controlled substance for sale and child endangerment and that the court had imposed sentences of three years for the former crime and four years for the latter. The report did not indicate whether the sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently and gave no estimate of Mother’s release date. It described the caseworker’s unsuccessful effort to obtain Mother’s precise release date from the correctional counselor. The report stated that maternal relatives were bringing X.Z. for prison visits, but that due to her incarceration, Mother had been unable to participate in court-ordered programs. The report said it was “highly unlikely” Mother would be able to reunify with her children, even if additional reunification services were ordered. Therefore, it was recommended that reunification services be terminated.
At the September 12, 2011 six-month review hearing, the court stated it was inclined to terminate reunification services with respect to X.Z. due to her age (less than a year old).
Counsel for Mother stated: “I understand Mother will be incarcerated longer than the statutory period of reunification; however, I’m going to enter an objection today to terminating her services.” The court expressed its understanding that both parents objected, but found that “since both parents will be incarcerated longer than the reunification period there is not a substantial probability that [X.Z.] may be returned to her parents by the 12-month permanency hearing.” The court further found that the parents were unable to “complete any of the disposition case plan” due to their incarceration or to “demonstrate[] the capacity or
ability to complete the objectives of the treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional health.” The court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 9, 2012. The minute order stated that the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the minors to the physical custody of the parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to their physical or emotional well-being, that DCFS had complied with the case plan, that Mother was not in compliance with the case plan, and that reasonable services had been provided to meet the needs of the minors.
After terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing, the court provided the following advisement: “[T]he court advises all parties present and directs the clerk of the court to forward written advisement to parties not present that to preserve any right to review on appeal of the court’s order setting a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan under 366.26, the party must seek an extraordinary writ by filing a notice of intent to file writ petition and request for record, or other notice of intent to file writ petition and request for record, and a writ petition-juvenile form, or other petition for extraordinary writ. [j[] I would advise you to speak to your attorney.”
Mother did not seek writ review of the September 2011 order. After multiple continuances, the section 366.26 hearing was held on December 4, 2012. Mother presented no evidence, but objected to termination of her parental rights.
The evidence presented established that Consuelo, Mother’s sister and X.Z.’s guardian since shortly after the detention, had repeatedly expressed her desire to adopt X.Z., and that X.Z. was thriving in Consuelo’s care. The adoption home study was completed in August 2012. On December 4, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that X.Z. was adoptable, and that no exception to adoption applied. The court issued an order terminating parental rights over X.Z. Mother filed a notice of appeal from the order. Mother was released from prison in January 2013.
DISCUSSION
An order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing is “not appealable” unless “(A) A petition for extraordinary
writ review was filed in a timely manner.[
] [f] (B) The petition substantively addressed the specific issues to be challenged and supported that challenge by an adequate record, [f] (C) The petition for extraordinary writ review was summarily denied or otherwise not decided on the merits.” (§ 366.26, subd. (Z)(l); see § 366.26, subd. (Z)(2);
In re Cathina W.
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 719 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 480].) Section 366.26, subdivision (Z) and the court rules implementing it are intended to ensure that resolution of challenges to setting orders are resolved before the section 366.26 hearing.
(Karl S. v. Superior Court
(1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1402-1403 [41 Cal.Rptr.2d 84].) The provision supports “ ‘[t]he state’s interest in expedition and finality’ ” and the child’s interest in “ ‘securing a stable, “normal,” home,’ ” which goals would be compromised if the validity of issues addressed in the order terminating reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing remained undecided until after the court’s adoption of a permanent plan.
(In re Anthony B.
(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022-1023 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 594]; see
In re Rashad B.
(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 447 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 462] [“In adopting section 366.26, subdivision (Z), ‘. . . the Legislature has unequivocally expressed its intent that [setting] orders be challenged by writ before the section 366.26 hearing.’ ”].)
Section 366.26, subdivision (Z) requires the court, after terminating reunification and issuing an order setting a section 366.26 hearing, to “advise all parties of the requirement of filing a petition for extraordinary writ review as set forth in this subdivision in order to preserve any right to appeal in these issues.” (§ 366.26, subd. (Z)(3)(A).) The notice must be “made orally to a party if the party is present at the time of the making of the order or by first-class mail by the clerk of the court to the last known address of a party not present at the time of the making of the order.”
(Ibid.)
Rule 5.590(b) of the California Rules of Court similarly provides: “When the court orders a hearing under . . . section 366.26, the court must advise all parties and, if present, the child’s parent, guardian, or adult relative, that if the party wishes to preserve any right to review on appeal of the order setting the hearing under . . . section 366.26, the party is required to seek an extraordinary writ by filing a Notice of Intent to File Writ Petition and Request for Record . . . (form JV-820) or other notice of intent to file a writ petition and request for record and a Petition for Extraordinary Writ . . . (form JV-825) or other petition for extraordinary writ. [1] (1) the advisement must be given orally to those present when the court orders the hearing under . . . section 366.26. [f]
(2) Within one day after the court orders the hearing under . . . section 366.26, the advisement must be sent by first-class mail by the clerk of the court to the last known address of any party who is not present when the court orders the hearing under . . . section 366.26.” (Italics & citations omitted.)
Rule 5.590(b) of the California Rules of Court goes on to state that “[t]he advisement must include the time for filing a notice of intent to file a writ petition” and that “[c]opies of Petition for Extraordinary Writ . . . (form JV-825) and Notice of Intent to File Writ petition and Request for Record . . . (form JV-820) must be available in the courtroom and must accompany all mailed notices informing the parties of their rights.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590(b)(3) & (4), italics & citations omitted.)
Mother contends the oral notice provided was defective because the court failed to indicate the time for filing a notice of intent.
Citing cases in which the juvenile court failed to advise the parent of his or her right to writ review of the order setting the section 366.26 hearing, she contends she must be permitted to raise issues related to a hearing that took place two years ago. For the reasons discussed, we conclude otherwise.
Courts have held that where the juvenile court fails entirely to advise a parent of his or her right to seek writ review of an order terminating
reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing, claims of error relating to provision of reunification services are cognizable on appeal from the order terminating parental rights.
(In re Frank R.
(2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 [121 Cal.Rptr.3d 348];
In re Lauren Z.
(2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583];
In re Harmony B.
(2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831 [23 Cal.Rptr.3d 207];
In re Maria S.
(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038 [98 Cal.Rptr.2d 655];
In re Rashad B., supra,
76 Cal.App.4th at p. 450;
In re Cathina W., supra,
68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 722-724.) We find those cases inapposite. Here, the court did advise Mother that “to preserve any right to review on appeal” of the September 2011 order, she “must seek an extraordinary writ by filing a notice of intent to file writ petition and request for record, or other notice of intent to file writ petition and request for record, and a writ petition-juvenile form, or other petition for extraordinary writ.” In the presence of counsel, the court expressly advised Mother to “speak to your attorney.” The court’s only fault was in failing to mention the deadline for filing the notice of intent and request for record. But Mother did not merely miss the deadline for filing a notice of intent and request for record. She failed to file a writ petition, notice of intent or request for record at
any
time, ignoring the court’s advisement that this was the sole method to preserve her right to review its September 2011 order.
No case of which we are aware has held that failure to inform a party of the deadline, standing alone, justifies disregarding section 366.26, subdivision
(l)
and permitting a parent to reopen reunification issues by an appeal filed after the permanent plan has been implemented. Nor do we believe such a rule would be wise. It is not at all unusual for dependency proceedings to move slowly after termination of reunification services, as the focus shifts to determining a child’s adoptability and considering potential permanent homes. A year or more may pass before the necessary investigations and paperwork are completed and the final plan approved by the court, during which time the child becomes increasingly accustomed to a new environment and new caregivers. Any rule allowing a parent to belatedly raise issues relating to the reunification phase should be drawn as narrowly as possible. Where no information about the writ review requirement was provided by the court, such a rule is a necessary evil required to protect fundamental due process despite its detrimental impact on the goals of expedition, finality and stability. (See
In re Frank R., supra,
192 Cal.App.4th at p. 539.) But where the parent has been advised of the necessity of seeking review by way of a writ proceeding with no information about the deadline, he or she has the option of filing a writ petition or notice of intent within any reasonable time and asking the Court of Appeal to grant relief from default for a late filing. (See
Jonathan M. v. Superior Court
(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1831 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 688] [petitioner who files notice of intent late may obtain relief from default on showing of good cause];
Karl S. v. Superior
Court, supra,
34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1404 [same].) Mother could have obtained review of the court’s September 2011 order by filing a late writ petition or notice of intent, and presenting evidence that she had been misled or confused by the court’s advisement. Instead, having been advised of the need to seek writ review, she sought none at any time during the nearly 15 months between the September 2011 hearing terminating reunification services and the December 2012 section 366.26 hearing. On this record, we see no basis to apply the rule applicable to parents who were not advised of their right to seek writ review of an order terminating reunification services. Accordingly, we conclude the issues raised in Mother’s appeal pertaining to the September 2011 order are not reviewable at this time.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
Epstein, P. J., and Willhite, J., concurred.
On December 4, 2013, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.