Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Writ petition to review order setting hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Marilyn K. Martinez, Juvenile Court Referee. Super. Ct. No. CK71826
Law Offices of Alex Iglesias, Pamela Rae Tripp and Maya Sorensen for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Andrea S. Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Timothy M. O’Crowley, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
PERLUSS, P. J.
Petitioner S.N. seeks extraordinary relief (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order, made after she had received reunification services for the maximum allowable time, setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to consider termination of parental rights and implementation of a permanent plan for her 11-year-old son Jason K. We deny the petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2007 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition seeking to declare Jason a dependent child of the juvenile court. The petition included allegations S.N. had physically abused Jason, used illicit drugs while Jason was present and displayed mental and emotional problems requiring hospitalization and placing Jason at risk of harm.
In its report for the detention hearing the Department stated Jason had told the social worker he feared S.N. and did not want to be left alone with her. Jason explained S.N. kept him locked in a bedroom, did not enroll him in school, hit him and threw things at him, and threatened to hurt him if he told anyone about these incidents. Jason added that S.N. exhibited “strange” and paranoid behavior when she used drugs.
In reports for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing the Department indicated S.N. had admitted using methamphetamine but minimized her drug use and stated she had never hit Jason and did not have any psychological or psychiatric problems. Jason renewed his earlier assertions of repeated physical abuse and drug use by S.N. and told the social worker he was happy in his placement with his maternal grandparents and did not wish to be returned to S.N. or even to visit with her. Jason’s therapist had written to the social worker expressing concern that S.N. may have sexually abused Jason, who told the therapist S.N. had touched his private parts and said he had a “big secret” he could not disclose for fear S.N. may follow through with her threat to kill him if he did. On May 29, 2008, after sustaining the section 300 petition, the juvenile court made its disposition plan, including an order for conjoint counseling “when deemed appropriate by the court.”
S.N. continued to receive reunification services through the date for the 12-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (f)). In various reports prepared between May 2008 and the 12-month review hearing on June 2, 2009, the Department indicated the primary theme of Jason’s therapy was his anger toward S.N. Jason’s monitored visits with S.N. consistently caused him distress, and he remained defiant and irritable for several days after each visit. S.N. told Jason during telephone calls that his “lying pie hole” had landed her in court. Jason’s therapist opined Jason was not ready for conjoint therapy with S.N. in view of his still undiminished anger toward her. S.N. continued to deny she had physically abused Jason, and Jason’s therapist believed S.N. would not be ready to participate in conjoint counseling until she acknowledged her abuse. Jason still exhibited great anger toward S.N. and told the social worker he did not even want to talk about S.N.
Jason referred to his weekly visiting day with S.N. as “terrible Tuesday.”
On August 14, 2008 the court ordered S.N. not to have further telephone contact with Jason.
At the 12-month review hearing on June 2, 2009 the juvenile court ordered the Department to continue to provide reunification services for S.N. and Jason and set an August 21, 2009 date for the 18-month, permanent plan hearing (§ 366.22). The court also modified its disposition order by directing that conjoint counseling commence when deemed appropriate by Jason’s counsel.
The contested 18-month review hearing was conducted on November 10, 2009 and November 13, 2009. At the conclusion of the hearing the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26.
CONTENTION
S.N. alleges entitlement to additional reunification services on the ground the juvenile court’s order directing that conjoint counseling was to commence when deemed appropriate by Jason’s counsel, made on June 2, 2009 at the 12-month review hearing, was an improper delegation of the court’s power to implement and monitor the reunification plan.
DISCUSSION
Subdivision (a)(1) of section 395 provides: “A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment....” The juvenile court’s May 29, 2008 disposition order was an appealable judgment (In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233), and its June 2, 2009 order modifying the disposition order was an appealable order after judgment.
S.N. did not appeal the June 2, 2009 post-disposition order and thus waived the opportunity to challenge the order. A challenge to the most recent order in a dependency case may not challenge prior orders as to which the statutory time for filing an appeal has expired. (In re Elizabeth G. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1327, 1331.) “The writ procedure outlined in section 366.26, subdivision (l) and implemented in rule [8.452]... does not impact the appealability of a court’s prior orders...; those remain appealable as dispositional and postdispositional orders. (§ 395.) If... the parent... does not challenge an order for services in a timely fashion, [she] may not raise the issue when reunification is terminated.” (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811.) By failing to appeal the conjoint counseling order made by the juvenile court at the 12-month review hearing, S.N. has waived any objection she may have to the order.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur: WOODS, J.JACKSON, J.