Linh D. v. Orange Super. Ct.
Filed 6/16/06 Linh D. v. Orange Super. Ct. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
LINH D., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Real Parties in Interest. | G037018 (Super. Ct. Nos. DP010687 & DP010688) O P I N I O N |
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Petition denied.
Law Offices of Hoang Huy Tu and Thomas Pham, Jr., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
* * *
Introduction
Petitioner Linh D. (mother) is the mother of Shirley D. and Sandra D. (the children), now 14 and five years old, respectively.[1] The children were taken into protective custody in August 2004, after their sister, Stephanie D., then six years old, was struck and killed by a car; Stephanie was unattended by mother while she attempted to cross a busy street.
Mother complied with her case plan, and was nearing the point where the children would be returned to her care, when she was arrested in November 2005 and charged with willful cruelty to a child (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)), in connection with Stephanie's death. A protective order imposed by the criminal court prohibited further unsupervised contact between mother and the children. Because it appeared the children could not be reunified with mother under the time constraints set by statute (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a)), the juvenile court ordered reunification services terminated, and set a permanency hearing. (All further references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise noted.) Mother filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging that order.
We conclude the juvenile court did not err. Section 366.22, subdivision (a) requires the juvenile court to set a permanency hearing if a dependent child is not returned to his or her parents' custody at the 18-month review hearing. Because the children could not be returned to mother's custody at the 18‑month review hearing due to the criminal court's protective order, the juvenile court had no choice but to set the permanency hearing. Therefore, we deny mother's petition.
Statement of Facts
In February 2004, the police were called when Stephanie and Sandra, who were wandering outside alone, were almost hit by a car. An Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) social worker interviewed mother, who stated she had asked her roommate to watch Shirley, Stephanie, and Sandra while she left the house to pay the telephone bill. She did not know the roommate had left them alone. Mother admitted she had left Shirley, Stephanie, and Sandra at home alone in the past, â€