Skip to content
Name: In re Cody R.
Case #: D073527
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/17/2018

Parent had no standing to challenge the social worker's actions under the relative placement statutes where there was no showing that she could have reunified. The child was removed from parental custody after he was found severely malnourished to the point of starvation. The juvenile court sustained a dependency petition and bypassed reunification services based on a finding of severe physical abuse. It set a hearing under section 366.26. The court did not advise the parents that they could challenge this order only by way of a writ petition, but mother filed a notice of intent to file such a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Hannah D.
Case #: F074143
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/10/2017

Father's failure to challenge order terminating reunification services by way of writ precluded his review of the order on appeal from the subsequent 366.26 hearing, despite court's failure to orally advise him of writ requirement. At a status review hearing regarding the minors, the Department recommended that the court terminate services and schedule a 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court found that father repeatedly failed to show up for drug testing and made no effort regarding his services. It granted the Department's request to terminate services, and set a 366.26 hearing. Father was served with written notice…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Albert A.
Case #: E063869
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/14/2009

Failure to provide timely writ notice to mother was good cause to consider her claims in appeal from parental rights termination. Minors were dependents of the court and placed with their grandmother. Mother did not attend the six-month review hearing where services to her were terminated and a permanency planning hearing was set. Subsequently, the court terminated mother's parental rights. On appeal, mother argued that although she did not challenge the order setting the permanency planning hearing by filing an extraordinary writ, there was good cause to consider her claim of error on appeal from the order terminating parental…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.O.
Case #: E062111
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/12/2015

Where trial court did not advise mother of her right to appeal following the disposition hearing, appellate court reached merits of mother's arguments despite untimely appeal. Mother appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional findings concerning the minor, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support them. The Department asserted that mother forfeited these arguments by failing to file a timely notice of appeal after the dispositional order. Mother conceded the appeal was not timely, but asked the court to reach the merits of the case because the juvenile court failed to advise mother of her right to appeal at the conclusion…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.C.
Case #: D066943
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/17/2015

Father forfeited right to raise issues from termination of services at 12-month review hearing for failure to pursue a writ. After father filed his notice of intent to file a writ petition following the termination of his services at the 12-month review hearing, his appointed attorney reviewed the case and found no meritorious issue. She notified the court that no writ petition would be filed, and the notice of intent to file a petition was dismissed. In his appeal from the subsequent termination of his parental rights, father contended that the court should treat the appeal as a writ…

View Full Summary
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…

View Full Summary
Name: Jennifer T. v. Superior Court
Case #: B197412
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/24/2008

Proper remedy for trial court's failure to advise mother of writ requirements was to deem her purported appeal to be a petition for writ of mandate. Disagreeing with In re Merrick V., the court held that the failure to advise a party of the writ requirements cannot confer a right to appeal as a remedy. Instead, the proper approach is to allow the party to obtain direct review of the order setting a section 366.26 hearing by way of an ordinary petition for writ of mandate, without regard to the shortened period for writ review that would otherwise be…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Paul W.
Case #: H029866
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/23/2007

Mother was not a party to the habeas proceeding initiated by father to determine whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The juvenile court issued an order to show cause on father's petition for writ of habeas corpus, which claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. Mother was aware of the hearing, but did not attend. The trial court concluded that father's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the errors were prejudicial. The court vacated its jurisdictional findings and subsequent orders. Mother appealed from the habeas decision, claiming that the trial court erred when it failed…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Brandy R.
Case #: G037792
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/12/2007

Trial court proceedings are not stayed pending the issuance of a remittitur from a prior writ proceeding. Mother argued in an appeal from the termination of her parental rights that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to begin the 366.26 hearing because the matter was automatically stayed pending the issue of a remittitur from the prior writ proceeding. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that the statute does not include a provision for an automatic stay. Further, the statute requires an exceptional showing of good cause to justify a stay, consistent with the strong public policy…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Tabitha W.
Case #: E039935
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/03/2006

Mother appealed from the order denying her reunification services and the order denying her visitation. Father appealed from the order taking jurisdiction and removing the minors, as well as the same orders as mother. Both parents also filed 39.1b writs. The appellate court dismissed the appeals as improperly taken from a hearing at which a 366.26 hearing was set. Because the orders the parents appeal from were made contemporaneously with the setting order, the appeals must be dismissed. All orders issued at a hearing in which a section 366.26 hearing was set, including visitation orders,…

View Full Summary