In re Katrina R.

Filed 6/7/06 In re Katrina R. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Patrick J. Morris, Judge. Affirmed.

Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Mother.

Ronald D. Reitz, County Counsel, and Julie J. Surber, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Neil R. Trop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Father.

Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

After Bryan R. (father) prevailed on appeal (E035875) on notice grounds and this court reversed the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to Katrina R. (born in 2000), mother filed a motion to reinstate her parental rights. The juvenile court dismissed her motion based on a lack of jurisdiction over the matter. Upon mother filing a notice of appeal challenging the order denying her motion, this court requested mother to address the issues of (1) whether mother has standing to bring this appeal and (2) whether this court has jurisdiction to decide the matters raised in mother's appeal concerning her parental rights.

In addressing these issues, mother argues she has standing to bring this appeal because she is an aggrieved party as a consequence of being deprived of parental rights and that this court's order reinstating father's parental rights simultaneously reinstated her parental rights. Mother further argues the trial court and this court have jurisdiction to consider her motion to reinstate parental rights since the order terminating her rights was voidable as a consequence of father not receiving notice of the dependency proceedings and because the court cannot terminate parental rights as to only one parent. Mother further argues that it is in Katrina's best interests to reinstate mother's parental rights.

As we explain, mother has standing to bring this appeal because she is aggrieved by the trial court's order terminating her parental rights and the order denying her motion to reinstate them. However, this court and the trial court do not have authority or jurisdiction to reinstate mother's parental rights since mother did not timely appeal the order terminating her parental rights. As a consequence, the trial court appropriately denied mother's motion seeking reinstatement of her parental rights, and the judgment is affirmed.

1. Factual and Procedural Background

In February, 2003, the San Bernardino County Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging mother, a victim of domestic violence, failed to protect Katrina and her siblings from physical abuse inflicted by mother's boyfriends. Mother also suffered from substance abuse, which affected her ability to parent.

During the dependency proceedings, mother failed to complete her service plan, missed most of her scheduled visits with Katrina, and failed to appear at the disposition hearing, six-month review hearing, and permanency planning hearing. She also failed to appeal from the order terminating her parental rights.

Father's whereabouts were unknown during the dependency proceedings. As a consequence, he was not given proper notice of any of the proceedings. Shortly after termination of his parental rights, he discovered his rights were terminated and made a concerted effort to reinstate his rights by appealing on notice grounds. This court reversed the order terminating father's parental rights, concluding father had not received proper notice of any of the juvenile dependency proceedings. This court further directed the juvenile court to vacate as to father the dispositional order and all subsequent orders.

After the matter was remanded to the trial court, the trial court reinstated father's parental rights, ordered reunification services provided to father, and ordered Katrina placed with father.

Meanwhile, after father's parental rights were restored and Katrina was placed with father, mother filed a motion to reinstate her parental rights. The trial court dismissed mother's motion on the grounds the â€