Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from a post judgment order the Superior Court of Orange County No. DP015283, Gary Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen, Senior Deputy County Counsel, and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
IKOLA, J.
At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (f), 12-month permanency review hearing, the court found reasonable reunification services had not been provided to dependent D.B.’s parents, including his father, appellant K.B. The court therefore continued reunification services for the parents and continued the permanency review hearing under section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1). The Welfare and Institutions Code requires the court to conduct a continued permanency review hearing “within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian . . . .” (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1), see also § 361.5, subd. (a)(2) [“court-ordered services may be extended up to a maximum time period not to exceed 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from physical custody of his or her parent or guardian”].) As dependent was first taken into custody in May 2007, the court scheduled the continued permanency review hearing for October 30, 2008.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless specified otherwise.
Father appeals, claiming the court should have prospectively ordered the continuation of reunification services past the scheduled 18-month review based on the inadequacy of previous services. We affirm. The court correctly deferred to the 18-month review hearing the question of whether to extend services beyond the 18 months authorized by the statute. The issue raised by father on appeal, based on the record before us, is not ripe.
The record does not include a transcript or documents from the 18-month review. Counsel notes in the reply brief that the court terminated father’s reunification services and returned dependent to mother under a family maintenance plan at the 18-month review hearing. If father is dissatisfied with the result of the 18-month review hearing, he is, of course, entitled to appeal that order.
FACTS
Following mother’s arrest in May 2007 on charges of willful cruelty to a child, a juvenile dependency petition was filed under section 300, subdivision (b). The petition alleged father, who was not living with mother, had a history of domestic violence, anger management issues, and a criminal background. Dependent received various placements following his detention, but never with mother or father. The jurisdictional/dispositional hearing concluded in August 2007, at which time the court declared D.B. to be a dependent, approved a service plan for the parents, and scheduled a six-month review hearing for January 7, 2008. At the six-month review, the court accepted the parties’ stipulation to continued services for parents and scheduled a 12-month review hearing for July 1, 2008.
The 12-month review proceeded in July over the course of several days. The court declined to return dependent to either parent. On the other hand, the court found parents had not received reasonable services in a timely fashion. The court ordered continued services for parents and ordered the Orange County Social Services Agency to investigate further father’s psychiatric treatment needs. The court set an 18-month review hearing for October 30, 2008. Following the court’s ruling, father requested the court to consider extending services beyond the 18-month statutory limit pursuant to case authority allowing such extensions in certain circumstances. The court declined to do so, noting it only had the authority to set the matter for an 18-month review at that time.
Although the parties provided us with detailed briefing regarding father’s life history and the particular services provided to him in association with this dependency case, we need not relate those facts here as such concerns are not relevant to the issue on which we decide the case.
DISCUSSION
Father asserts the court had authority to prospectively extend services past the 18-month permanency review hearing at the 12-month review hearing, and that the court should have exercised that authority. Each of the cases cited by father, however, involve courts extending services at the 18-month review due to special circumstances which justified going beyond the statutory limit of 18 months; none of the cases authorize a court to extend services past the 18-month limit at the 12-month review hearing. (See In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1790-1792 [mother hospitalized during crucial time period of case plan]; In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216 [services provided during final 12 months of reunification period were a “disgrace”]; In re Dino E. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1768, 1777-1778 [no reunification services plan developed].)
As explained above, the Welfare and Institutions Code requires courts to complete the continued permanency review hearing within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) Moreover, section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2), authorizes reunification services for parents for only 18 months following the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of his parent. At the 18-month review, the court must decide upon a permanent plan for the dependent child — such as reuniting the child with a parent, setting a section 366.26 hearing to terminate parental rights, continuing long-term foster care, and/or exploring adoption possibilities. (§ 366.21, subds. (f), (g), (i).)
In light of these statutory requirements, it is premature for us to determine on the record submitted whether the court should have extended reunification services for father past the 18-month review. At the 12-month review, the court was not obliged to determine the rights of the parties following the end of the initial 18 months of the dependency case. Appellate courts must refrain from reviewing unripe issues; this rule “prevents courts from issuing purely advisory opinions, or considering a hypothetical state of facts in order to give general guidance rather than to resolve a specific legal dispute.” (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 998.)
Although the 18-month review hearing is not before us, the apparent result at that hearing (the return of dependent to mother under a family maintenance plan) illustrates why it would be premature for us to determine whether father should be entitled to continued reunification services (beyond 18 months) based solely on the record developed at the 12-month review hearing. If we addressed the merits in this appeal, our review could only proceed on the assumption (now proven false) that dependent would not be returned to mother or father at the 18-month permanency review. Otherwise, father could not receive (because the permanent plan would be for mother to have sole custody) or alternatively would not need (because he would already be reunified) continued reunification services. If the result of this review based on hypothetical facts favored father, what would its effect be? It could not undo the court’s decision to return dependent to mother’s custody. Nor could it result in continued reunification services for father, which would contravene the permanent plan established at the 18-month review. We are not obligated to wade into this morass.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O’LEARY, ACTING P. J., FYBEL, J.