H.S. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 7/17/07 H.S. v. Sup. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.

H.S., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel and Mark L. Nations, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452) from the juvenile courts orders issued at an uncontested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code,  366.21, subd. (e))^[1] at which the court terminated her reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing as to her son J. We will deny the petition.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

Newborn J. was taken into protective custody in August 2006 after he and petitioner tested positive for amphetamine. Upon his discharge from the hospital, J. was placed in foster care. J.s four older siblings were being cared for by relatives because of petitioners illicit drug use.

The juvenile court adjudged J. a dependent of the court and, at an uncontested dispositional hearing in January 2007, ordered J. removed from petitioners custody and placed in the care and custody of the department of social services (department). The court also ordered petitioner to participate in substance abuse counseling, submit to random drug testing and visit J. weekly under the departments supervision. The court set the six-month review hearing for April 2007. Meanwhile, the department was evaluating a paternal relative for placement.

Over the next four months, petitioner regularly visited J. but did not otherwise comply with her services plan. At the same time, J.s caregivers were committed to adopting him. Consequently, the department recommended the court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 to consider a permanent plan of adoption.

An uncontested six-month review hearing was conducted in April 2007. Petitioner appeared through counsel who objected to the departments recommendations but offered no evidence or argument. The court adopted the departments recommendations to terminate services and set a section 366.26 hearing but otherwise left its prior orders intact.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in not placing J. with relatives. However, she never raised this issue for proper adjudication. She did not raise the issue of relative placement at the dispositional hearing or appeal from the courts dispositional order placing J. in the care and custody of the department. Nor did she raise the issue of relative placement at the six-month review hearing. Consequently, petitioner waived the issue for our review. (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150; In reChristopher B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 558.)

That said, nothing precludes petitioner from challenging J.s placement by filing a section 388^[2] petition before the juvenile court. However, on this record, we must deny relief.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

^*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

^[2] Section 388 allows the parent of a child adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court to petition the court to change, modify or set aside any order upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.