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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re M. M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B193680
(Los AngelesCountySuper.Ct.
No. CK42142)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and O. Raquel Ramirez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joy J. (mother) appeals from the orders made July 14, 2006, terminating parental rights to twins M. M. and J. M.[1] (the children) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[2] She never visited the children or attended the proceedings. She contends the prior orders denying reunification services and referring the matter for a hearing under section 366.26 (â€
Description
Mother appeals from the orders made July 14, 2006, terminating parental rights to the children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother never visited the children or attended the proceedings. She contends the prior orders denying reunification services and referring the matter for a hearing under section 366.26 ("referral orders") must be reversed, because substantial evidence does not support the finding under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) that mother previously failed to reunify with a sibling of the children and subsequently did not make reasonable efforts to rehabilitate herself. Mother argues this court has jurisdiction to review the referral orders even though she failed to file a petition for extraordinary writ under former rule 38.1 of the California Rules of Court(renumbered rule 8.452 effective January 1, 2007), because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition. Mother further contends the dependency court prejudicially erred in terminating parental rights, because notice of the continuance of the parental rights termination hearing was not proper and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (the ICWA) (92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. SS 1901-1963) was not complied with. Court hold that notice of the right to file a writ petition was properly provided and the referral orders are not reviewable in this appeal. Court also hold that failure to comply with the statutory notice procedure was nonprejudicial in this case, and the dependency court complied with the ICWA. Accordingly, the orders are affirmed.
