Opinion
E068621
06-27-2018
In re N.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.V., Defendant and Respondent; H.V. et al., Objectors and Appellants.
Brent Riggs, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objectors and Appellants. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. J253717) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. Brent Riggs, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objectors and Appellants. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and respondent R.V. (Mother) to her son, N.V. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) N.V.'s sisters, objectors and appellants S.V. and H.V. (collectively, the sisters), raise three issues on appeal. First, the sisters contend the juvenile court erred by terminating Mother's parental rights because the court should have applied the sibling relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) Second, the sisters contend the juvenile court erred by not requiring plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) to make greater efforts to keep the siblings together during the dependency proceedings. (§ 16002.) Third, the sisters assert their juvenile court attorneys were ineffective because they failed to argue that the Department needed to exercise greater diligence in placing the siblings together or increasing their visits. Mother, as a respondent, joins in the sisters' contentions. We affirm the judgment.
All subsequent statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. BACKGROUND
S.V. is female and was born in March 2000. H.V. is female and was born in December 2001. N.V. is male and was born in November 2002. N.V. has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Mother is the mother of S.V., H.V., and N.V. (collectively, the children). The children's presumed father is N.V.1 (Father). Father died in May 2012.
Mother suffers from depression, lupus, fibromyalgia, and five herniated spinal discs. N.V. was homeschooled by Mother. Mother assessed N.V. as being at the level of a kindergartner. In a prior case, in 2010, the children were removed from Mother's care due to her home being uninhabitable, but they were later returned to her custody.
B. DETENTION
On March 10, 2014, a San Bernardino County Sheriff's deputy conducted a welfare check on the children. The deputy found Mother's home, in Daggett, was uninhabitable due to animal feces on "every surface in the house," an infestation of cockroaches, the only toilet not functioning properly, and the only operable sink being clogged. Mother explained that she could not keep the home clean due to her medical issues.
C. JURISDICTION
N.V. was placed in a Foster Family Agency (FFA) home without his sisters. N.V. was aggressive with an infant in the home; he was then moved to a smaller foster home in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The sisters were placed together in an FFA home, in Hinkley. The sisters knew their foster mother from their church youth group. The sisters' foster mother had a space in her home for N.V.
The Department concluded it would be in N.V.'s best interests for N.V. to reestablish himself as a client of the Inland Regional Center and have an individualized education program developed prior to starting overnight visits with the sisters' foster mother. From those visits, the Department would then assess if the sisters' foster mother were capable of meeting N.V.'s needs. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered visits with Mother and the children once per week for two hours.
D. SIX-MONTH REVIEW
In October 2014, the sisters continued to reside separately from N.V. due to N.V.'s special needs. The sisters visited N.V. while visiting Mother. The visits were once per week for two hours, in Rancho Cucamonga. N.V. appeared to enjoy the visits. His behavior did not change when the visits ended.
N.V. had issues adjusting to school. N.V. was aggressive with school staff and destroyed school property. N.V. was suspended for hitting classmates and for spitting on the school bus. Additionally, N.V. used excessive profanity. The Department expressed hope that N.V. could, at some point, be transitioned into the same foster home as his sisters.
The juvenile court held a review hearing on October 6, 2014. At the hearing, the children's attorney said, "We did have a few requests. The girls are visiting with mom three days a week and they only get one of those days with [N.V.] There is a substantial distance between them. [N.V.] is in the special needs home in Rancho Cucamonga and the girls are in a home in Hinkley, so—and they are closer to the mom. That's why they are getting more visits.
"I would just ask the Department to look into the possibility of being able to arrange more than one weekly visit with [N.V.] He is—he does need the special needs home, but he shouldn't be punished by having to be placed there, by not seeing his siblings, and the girls would like to be able to see him a lot more."
The Department's lawyer responded, "With respect to the siblings' visitation issue, I don't know that I necessarily classify it as a punishment, but the distance is somewhat of a limiting factor. I can have the Department look into that, but I think right now the previous court order is appropriate."
The children's lawyer said, "I was thinking if they could even establish some type of Skype or Internet contact with [N.V.], that would be a little bit more than what they are having now." The Department's lawyer replied, "That's something we can look into. I am not sure of the capability of the respective homes, but it can be something to be looked into." The sisters' foster mother said their home had the capability for Skype communication.
The juvenile court asked if the sisters were able to call N.V. on the telephone. The children's attorney responded, "They said they have tried, but the caretaker of [N.V.]—either they are not answering or their phone is connected to . . . the fax machine. It sounds like they have a number of disabled children that they take care of, so it sounds like the home is probably pretty busy. But they have tried, and so we would ask for that as appropriate." The Department's attorney objected to the juvenile court ordering telephonic or internet contact without knowing the communication capabilities of N.V.'s foster home.
The juvenile court said, "I will ask that county counsel and [the Department] look into facilitating visitations between [the children] by Skype or Internet connection, and the guardians have indicated in court they have Skype capability at their home. [¶] I will also ask the Department . . . if possible to arrange more than one visit with [N.V.] between [the sisters], more than what they're receiving at this time, and also looking into whether or not phone calls would be available with [the children]." The juvenile court did not alter the prior order for the children's visits, but directed the Department to research whether Skype communication was a possibility.
E. 12-MONTH REVIEW
In April 2015, N.V. continued to reside apart from his sisters. N.V. remained in the small foster home due to his special needs. The sisters remained together in the home of their foster mother. In October 2014, Mother and the siblings began to have unsupervised visits, but not in Mother's home. The visits went well and the children's behavior did not change at the end of the visits. The children visited each other without Mother twice per month. There were no concerns with the children's interactions during the visits.
S.V. was doing well in school and performing at her grade level. H.V. was diagnosed with "Major Depressive Disorder." H.V. was taken into custody after she cut her wrist with broken glass. (§ 5150.) H.V. was released. She was given psychotropic medication and counseling services. H.V.'s foster mother was working with H.V. on H.V.'s mental health issues. The sisters had a good relationship with their foster mother.
N.V. "made great improvements" while at his foster home. N.V. was comfortable in the home and interacted well with the other children in the home. N.V.'s behavior at school improved. He interacted well with other students, but still used profanity. N.V. was incontinent and wore diapers. N.V. required assistance with bathing and hygiene, but was able to feed himself. While in the foster home, N.V. learned to throw trash away after eating and to place dishes in the sink. The Department continued to express hope that N.V. would be transitioned into the same foster home as his sisters.
F. 18-MONTH REVIEW
On three occasions when the Department social worker went to Mother's home in Daggett, the social worker saw trash bags and garbage in the front yard. Mother did not permit the Department to assess the condition of the interior of her home. Mother visited with the sisters, and the visits went well.
The sisters continued to reside together with their foster mother in Hinkley. N.V. continued to reside separately in the Rancho Cucamonga area, in his foster home that addressed his special needs. The sisters visited with N.V. twice per month. Once per month the sisters were driven to the Rancho Cucamonga area to visit N.V., and once per month N.V. and the sisters were transported to the Victorville area for a visit. There were no concerns with the children's interactions during the visits.
H.V. was taken off of psychotropic medication and was doing well. N.V. continued to do well in school, only using profanity when agitated. In September 2015, the Department recommended a plan of permanent placement for the children. The permanent placement for the sisters would be in their foster home, while N.V.'s permanent placement would be in his separate foster home.
The juvenile court held a hearing on September 10, 2015. At the hearing, the children's lawyer said the children had difficulty communicating with the Department's social worker, describing the communication as "short or difficult." Additionally, the children's lawyer said, "And another significant concern is [the sisters] request longer visits with their brother [N.V.], more frequent and longer visits. There are concerns with gas and [the] cost of the expensive travel. Apparently visits have been getting cut short, and they are one time every two or three weeks at this point. I would ask that those be increased. And apparently [N.V.] is demonstrating sadness at the loss of those visits and also the [sisters] also express the same sense."
The Department's lawyer said, "I see that minors wanted the additional visits with [N.V.] back in October of last year, and I believe the Court afforded them an opportunity to have phone and Skype contact in addition to the visits which are not frequent given the fact that the children are placed in different placements and [N.V.] is in [Rancho Cucamonga]. So I am wondering if we can have that order in place which would keep the siblings in contact more often."
The children's attorney responded, "Based on [N.V.'s] issues or technology issues, it doesn't sound like Skype is available or working or functional at this point." When making its orders, the juvenile court said, "I will also ask that the social worker to look [sic] into increasing the visits between [the children]; that it would be in the best interest of the children if the visits were increased. If Skype is not available or is not meaningful to [N.V.'s] issues, then that would be a reason to increase the visits as well. There is—the Court previously gave permission for Skype if that was available." The juvenile court terminated Mother's reunification services, but ordered unsupervised visitation between Mother and the children a minimum of two times per week for two hours, in a community setting.
G. FIRST POST-PERMANENT PLAN REVIEW
On January 8, 2016, N.V. was removed from his foster home due to allegations that he physically abused another child in the home. On January 11, N.V. was placed in a foster home in Riverside County. N.V.'s new foster mother was unable to transport N.V. for visits with his sisters and Mother. On February 12, N.V. was moved to a foster home in Fontana that was able to facilitate visits with the sisters and Mother. N.V.'s new foster parents were in contact with the sisters' foster mother concerning "strengthening the sibling relationship through more frequent visits." Visits between the children were scheduled to resume in March.
N.V. was not placed in the sisters' foster home because "[t]he caregiver for [the sisters] is not equipped to meet [N.V.'s] needs due to his disability." N.V.'s new foster parents reported that N.V. was tearing and shredding his clothes, but the shredding activity did not appear to be due to anger. The foster parents were going to research ways to keep N.V.'s hands occupied.
The juvenile court held a hearing on March 10, 2016. At the hearing the juvenile court said, "We had an off-the-record conversation. I would ask the social worker to look into trying to schedule the mother's visits with [N.V.] around the transportation of the children for their visits with each other. I will note that it appears there had been some slowdown or stall in the visits between siblings while [N.V.] was adjusting to a new foster home, but I would expect those to be regularized again in the very near future."
The children's attorney said, "I would just repeat the minors really do want to meet and visit with their sibling [N.V.]. The visits were ordered two times a week for three hours. Minors have reported that they met for three hours just recently, but before that it was—they hadn't had a visit since November of 2015, and even then, the visits are late. So I would hope that the visits could comply with the order of two times a week for three hours as much as possible in the transition period of [N.V.]" The juvenile court did not alter the prior sibling visitation order. At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court said, "I hope the visits start and are regular very soon."
H. SECOND POST-PERMANENT PLAN REVIEW
N.V.'s foster parents did not have a flexible schedule. The children visited each other once per month. N.V.'s foster parents created a Skype account and were coordinating with the sisters' foster mother to schedule a time for Skype conversations.
The sisters were doing well in their foster placement. They had a good relationship with their foster family. N.V. referred to his new foster mother as "mom." N.V. was more communicative in his new foster home, as his new foster mother was better able to understand N.V.'s speech and communicate with him.
The Department recommended that the sisters' permanent plan be a long-term foster placement, and N.V.'s plan be adoption by his new foster parents. The sisters' foster mother was willing to become the sisters' legal guardian; however, the sisters declined that arrangement. The sisters preferred to have Mother continue to hold educational and medical rights.
The juvenile court held a hearing on September 12, 2016. At the hearing, the following exchange took place:
"[The Children's Attorney]: Additionally, the minors would like—they indicated that they are not getting their sibling visits as frequently as they [would] like to, so if we can ask that the social worker make more efforts to have the sibling visits more frequently.
"The Court: What is the logistical situation?
"[The Children's Attorney]: I believe it is—right now they are getting it one time a month with the brother. However, it looks like once a week they are supposed to meet at least.
"The Court: What is the logistical situation?
"[The Children's Attorney]: They live in the Hinkley area.
"The Court: And the other minor?
"[The Children's Attorney]: And the other minor lives in Fontana.
"The Court: I have read and considered the reports. [¶] I will start with the findings on [the sisters]. I find notice has been given as required by law." The juvenile court said, "I will order that sibling visits occur. I am going to order them at once a month, but if it can be arranged more frequently, to have the social worker look into that. But I will make a minimum order of one time a month at this time."
At the hearing, in N.V.'s case, the juvenile court scheduled a hearing to terminate Mother's parental rights (§ 366.26). The juvenile court advised Mother of her right to file a writ petition in N.V.'s case. In the sisters' cases, the juvenile court found it was not in the sisters' best interests to schedule a hearing to terminate Mother's parental rights (§ 366.26).
I. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
N.V. suffered speech and visual impairments. N.V. attended special education classes. "[H]e has difficulty with communication, social skills, self-direction, self-care and academic skills. He has cognitive and processing deficits. His adaptive skills are severely impaired compared to his same age peers." N.V. did not visit his sisters between mid-November 2016 and mid-March 2017. The visits between the siblings that did occur went well. N.V.'s foster parents said they were willing to continue the sibling relationship after adopting N.V.
On May 4, 2017, the juvenile court held a hearing in N.V.'s case, concerning terminating Mother's parental rights to N.V. The sisters' attorney said the sisters were asserting the sibling bond exception to termination. S.V. testified at the hearing. S.V. said the three children lived together with Mother. The children walked to school and home together, they played in the park together, and played in the backyard of their home together. S.V. helped Mother care for N.V. by helping N.V. to get ready for school.
When the children were previously removed from Mother, in 2010, S.V. and N.V. resided in the same foster home for seven of the eight months. While in that foster home, S.V. continued to help N.V. dress for school, helped to pack N.V.'s lunch, and they played together on a swing set at the foster home. S.V. and N.V. also attended visits with H.V. once per week. During visits they worked on puzzles, played board games, and read books. When the children returned to Mother's home, they resumed living together. They watched television together and played video games together.
During the removal to foster care in the instant case, the sisters were placed in a separate house from N.V. because the sisters' foster mother was unable to provide for N.V.'s special needs. Initially, the sibling visits were once per week, then they were reduced to twice per month, and then they were reduced to once per month. The visits were continually reduced because it was a hardship for both sets of foster parents to travel the distance required for the visits.
When N.V. saw his sisters he was excited and said his sisters' names. During visits the siblings played games or watched cartoons. When the visits ended, N.V. was upset and said he did not want to leave or he asked the sisters to stay. S.V. disagreed with N.V. being adopted. S.V. explained that she was close to turning 18 years old and she could care for N.V.
In regard to the possibility that sibling contact would continue after N.V.'s adoption, S.V. said that N.V.'s foster parents/potential adoptive parents sometimes did not respond in a timely manner to text messages, which caused visits to be missed. S.V. explained that she feared she would not have consistent visitation with N.V. postadoption because it was already difficult to have consistent visitation with him when visitation was ordered by the court.
The sisters' attorney offered that if H.V. were to testify, she would also oppose N.V.'s adoption and that H.V. also has memories of spending time with N.V. The sisters' attorney argued that the juvenile court should apply the sibling bond exception. The sisters' attorney argued, "[T]hese three young people have been through the wringer together. They lived together continuously for many years, most of their lives.
It's only been in the last three years that—and [N.V.'s] 14—that they have not lived together . . . . [¶] They have endured two removals from their mom together. They have shared significant experiences together and spent a lot of time together and enjoyable activities, as [S.V.] testified. If ever the sibling bond were to apply, this would be that case."
The attorney for N.V. argued against applying the sibling bond exception. N.V.'s attorney explained that N.V. had special needs that cannot be served by every home, e.g., the sisters' foster mother could not provide care for N.V. N.V.'s attorney asserted that N.V. was doing well in his current foster placement/prospective adoptive home. The attorney argued, "I do recognize that they love their brother very, very much. I'm sure he loves them too. But we have to—but does the benefit of continuing a relationship actually outweigh the benefits of adoption for [N.V.]? I don't think so. [¶] He deserves a permanency that these prospective adoptive parents are going to give him. They've proved they can take care of all of his needs. It's the first home he's been in that has been so stable."
The Department argued that N.V.'s best interests would be served by adoption. The Department asserted that the siblings failed to prove the sibling bond exception should be applied, and therefore, the juvenile court should terminate Mother's parental rights.
The juvenile court found the children shared a beneficial relationship, but that the relationship did not outweigh the benefit N.V. would receive from adoption. The juvenile court said, "I can't find that terminating parental rights with the parents would so detrimental that it would outweigh the benefits of this particular child's long-term needs. Probably due to his special needs, he may be even more so than another child of his same age—need[ing] stability. [¶] It obviously is much more difficult for someone with these types of needs and his mental abilities, even as described by [S.V.], as a three- to four-year-old to have multiple placements. Adoption would assure him permanency, which is the preferred preference [sic] under the law, and this Court is giving great weight to that, in light of the needs. So I can't find that the relationship that he has in return [sic] to the sisters outweighs the benefits of a lifetime of stability. I find there is insufficient evidence to apply the exception." The juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights.
DISCUSSION
A. SIBLING BOND EXCEPTION
The sisters contend the juvenile court erred by not applying the sibling bond exception.
If a juvenile court finds a dependent child is adoptable, then it will terminate parental rights unless one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions is applicable. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of the enumerated exceptions is the sibling relationship exception, which provides, "There would be substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same home, whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and whether ongoing contact is in the child's best interest, including the child's long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)
The juvenile court found the children have a beneficial relationship. Therefore, the issue on appeal is whether the court erred in weighing the detriment caused by termination, due to the sibling relationship, against the benefit N.V. would receive from legal permanence through adoption. The abuse of discretion standard of review applies when reviewing the juvenile court's determination that the benefit of adoption outweighs the detriment of terminating parental rights. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.)
At the time of the termination hearing, N.V. was 14 years old. Due to N.V.'s limited language skills, he could not express his feelings concerning adoption, and it was believed that N.V. did not understand the concept of adoption due to limited comprehension. N.V. was "diagnosed with Down[] Syndrome and is severely delayed in most areas. He has limited language ability and relies on his foster parents for most daily living activities including hygiene and toileting needs." N.V. had been in six placements since his removal from Mother's home in March 2014.
Due to N.V.'s limited abilities, he has a strong need for permanence. In particular, N.V. needs people who can provide him with long-term care and support. While the children share a beneficial relationship, N.V.'s need for permanence is greater than the harm that may result from the lack of sibling contact. In other words, the record supports a finding that the benefit N.V. would gain from permanence through adoption is greater than the detriment N.V. may suffer due to the termination of parental rights. Accordingly, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
The sisters explain that S.V. is now 18 years old and employed, and, therefore, S.V. could be N.V.'s caretaker. We understand the sisters' argument as asserting S.V. is interested in adopting N.V. In order for such an adoption to occur, Mother's parental rights must be terminated. (§ 366.26., subd. (b)(1) ["Terminate the rights of the parent or parents and order that the child be placed for adoption"].) Accordingly, the sisters' argument does not persuade this court that the juvenile court erred by terminating Mother's parental rights.
B. SECTION 16002
1. CONTENTIONS
The sisters contend the juvenile court erred by not requiring the Department make greater efforts to keep the children together during the dependency proceedings. (§ 16002.) The Department contends the sisters have forfeited this issue.
Section 16002, subdivision (b), provides, in relevant part, "The responsible local agency shall make a diligent effort in all out-of-home placements of dependent children . . . to place siblings together in the same placement, and to develop and maintain sibling relationships. If siblings are not placed together in the same home, the social worker . . . shall explain why the siblings are not placed together and what efforts he or she is making to place the siblings together or why making those efforts would be contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings. When placement of siblings together in the same home is not possible, a diligent effort shall be made, and a case plan prepared, to provide for ongoing and frequent interaction among siblings until family reunification is achieved, or, if parental rights are terminated, as part of developing the permanent plan for the child."
Section 16002 sets forth a legislative goal for placement, but it does not create a mandatory duty that siblings be placed together. In other words, the location of a child's sibling(s) is a factor to be considered when making foster care placement decisions. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 627, 642.)
2. ORDERS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULING OF THE TERMINATION HEARING
A dispositional order in a dependency proceeding is an appealable judgment. As a result, most subsequent orders are directly appealable. If an appeal is not taken from the subsequent order, then the order becomes "final and binding and may not be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable order." (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150.)
In this appeal, from the order terminating parental rights, the sisters are attacking the juvenile court's alleged errors throughout the dependency proceedings. The sisters assert the juvenile court should have required greater diligence on the part of the Department to (1) place the children together, or (2) increase the frequency and/or duration of the children's visits. (§ 16002.) The sisters cite alleged errors by the juvenile court starting with the detention hearing and proceeding to the disposition hearing and then the status review hearings. The sisters have not raised these issues in a timely manner and have therefore forfeited those issues that arise from the detention hearing through the status hearings. Due to the sisters' failure to appeal from the orders made prior to the scheduling of the termination hearing, the orders have become final and binding. Accordingly, we conclude those issues have been forfeited.
The sisters contend those issues have not been forfeited because the juvenile court failed to advise them of their appellate rights. There is one exception to the rule that a party cannot raise issues concerning prior orders of the juvenile court. That exception is as follows: if the juvenile court failed to give the party the required advisement of writ or appellate rights, then the party generally has good cause for having failed to appeal from the prior order and will be permitted to raise issues concerning that prior order in an appeal from a subsequent order. (In re T.W. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 723, 729.) The juvenile court is required to notify the child of her appellate rights (1) following the entry of a disposition order after a contested jurisdiction hearing, and (2) when ordering a hearing to terminate parental rights. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590(a)&(b).)
The jurisdiction and disposition hearing in the children's cases was not a contested proceeding. Mother filed a waiver of her rights. The children submitted with a request that the court order sibling visitation; and the court granted that request. Accordingly, because the proceeding was not contested, there was no need to provide the parties with notice of their appellate rights. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590(a).)
3. THE ORDER SCHEDULING THE TERMINATION HEARING
We now turn to the advisement of the right to file a writ following the scheduling of the termination hearing. "When the court orders a hearing [to consider terminating parental rights], the court must advise all parties and, if present, the child's parent, guardian, or adult relative, that if the party wishes to preserve any right to review on appeal of the order setting the hearing [for termination], the party is required to seek an extraordinary writ by filing a Notice of Intent to File Writ Petition and Request for Record . . . ." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590(b).)
Siblings, even dependent siblings, are not parties to their sibling's dependency case. (In re Hector A. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 783, 791.) In order for nonparty siblings to appear at a termination hearing (§ 366.26) and assert the sibling relationship exception, the nonparty siblings need to obtain an order from the juvenile court granting them permission to participate in the termination hearing. (Hector A., at p. 793.)
S.V.'s juvenile court case number was 253719. H.V.'s juvenile court case number was 253718. N.V.'s juvenile court case number was 253717. The hearing for terminating Mother's parental rights was scheduled in N.V.'s case (case No. 253717), because Mother's parental rights were only at issue in relation to N.V.
The sisters are not the minors named in case No. 253717. Thus, the sisters were not parties in case No. 253717 at the time the juvenile court scheduled the hearing to consider terminating Mother's parental rights to N.V. Because the sisters were not parties to case No. 253717, the juvenile court was not required to provide them with a writ advisement when scheduling the hearing to consider terminating parental rights. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590(b).) Accordingly, the lack of a writ advisement for the sisters does not mean the sisters can now raise arguments concerning alleged errors that occurred prior to the termination hearing.
4. CONCLUSION
In sum, the alleged errors that occurred related to visitation and placement have been forfeited.
C. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
The sisters contend their juvenile court attorneys were ineffective because they failed to argue that greater diligence was needed in placing the children together or increasing their visits. (§ 16002.) The sisters' argument alleges ineffective assistance from the disposition hearing through the scheduling of the hearing to terminate parental rights. For example, the sisters assert, "[F]or a period of more than two years, the children's lawyers permitted the government to separate children who had lived happily . . . together and who wanted to continue living together." As explained ante, any alleged errors with the prior proceedings have been forfeited for failing to seek prior appellate relief.
The sisters do not raise a specific issue concerning their attorney's performance at the termination hearing. For example, the sisters write, "Up until the section-366.26 hearing, the [sisters'] trial counsels failed in their duty to their clients." Because the contention appears to be directed only at errors that are alleged to have occurred prior to the termination hearing, we do not further address the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
Acting P. J. We concur: CODRINGTON
J. FIELDS
J.