Skip to content
Name: In re X.Z.
Case #: B247449
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 12/04/2013

If sufficient advisement of the right to writ review is otherwise provided, failure to include relevant time deadlines is not error. When mother was incarcerated, her two-month old child, X.Z., was detained. At the six-month status review hearing, her reunification services were terminated and a section 366.26 hearing was set. The court advised the parties of their right to seek writ review but did not inform them of relevant deadlines. Mother did not seek writ review. She appealed the termination of parental rights, challenging the findings and orders made at the six-month status review hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the court’s omission did not entitle mother to review of the findings made at six-month status review hearing. Although it may have been sufficient to excuse an untimely writ, failure to inform parties of the deadline for seeking writ review does not itself warrant re-opening issues related to reunification after the permanency plan has been implemented. Further, none of the challenged orders warranted reversal. Mother was offered services for the period permitted by statute, and her failure to make progress in services was a consequence of her criminal conduct and resulting incarceration.