Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK58874, Jan G. Levine, Judge.
E.C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Owen L. Gallagher, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Sophia Ali and Ezra Siegel for Minors.
VOGEL, Acting P.J.
This is a mother’s pro se petition for extraordinary writ relief from a dependency court order scheduling a permanent plan hearing for her three children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.452, 8.456.) We deny the petition.
All section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTS
E.C. has three children, L.J. (now 10 years old), E.J. (now 9), and L.C. (now 8). The family came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services in April 2005 by a referral from the Child Protective Hotline based on a report of general neglect and caretaker absence. Through its investigation, the Department learned that E.C. had been in jail for about two weeks (possibly for prostitution) and that the children, although purportedly living with their father (L.J., Sr., since deceased), had been going door-to-door in their neighborhood in search of food. The children had not been to school for almost a year, and their apartment had “a very bad odor” (eviction proceedings were pending). The parents both abused drugs.
On April 22, the Department filed a petition alleging that E.C. and L.J. Sr. had a history of drug abuse rendering them incapable of protecting or providing care for their children, and that the parents had physically abused E.J. (then 6) by failing to obtain medical treatment for a bleeding laceration on her foot. (§ 300, subds. (b), (j).) Both parents appeared at the detention hearing and the court appointed counsel for them. The children were detained, and reunification services were ordered.
Neither E.C. nor L.J., Sr. made any effort to visit the children, and the Department reported in May that it was assessing the home of a maternal relative, Ruby P., for the children’s placement. The petition was sustained at a May 12 hearing, and (with the court’s permission) the children were shortly thereafter placed with Ruby. By December, the children’s educational progress had improved and Ruby was interested in pursuing legal guardianship.
The Department reported in April 2006 that it had lost contact with E.C. and L.J., Sr., and that it thus had been unable to determine whether either of them had criminal histories. Neither parent made any effort to visit the children. On April 11, the dependency court terminated family reunification services for both parents and directed the Department to prepare a permanent plan for the children’s care. In July 2006, the dependency court appointed Ruby as the children’s legal guardian.
The Department reported in September 2007 that the children were “adjusting well” in Ruby’s home, where Ruby, who was considering adoption of all three children, was providing “a safe, stable, and nurturing home environment.” Meanwhile, E.C. had given birth to another child in April, and another dependency case had been opened. The court set a section 366.26 hearing for January 2008 to determine whether to select adoption by Ruby as the permanent plan for the three older children.
In October, E.C. filed her petition challenging the September order. The Department and the children oppose the petition.
DISCUSSION
Generously construed, E.C.’s petition claims her right to notice was violated when, at the September 2007 hearing, the court set the permanent plan hearing for January 2008. We disagree.
E.C.’s petition does not refer to the record or cite any authority. It is accompanied by a declaration from a counselor at the drug treatment facility where E.C. was residing in October 2007 when the petition was filed. According to the counselor, who opens E.C. ’s mail, E.C. did not receive notice of the September 2007 hearing at which the January 2008 hearing was set. But the address for the treatment facility is the same address shown on the petition, and the record shows (by a proof of service) that notice of the September 2007 hearing was sent to E.C. at that address.
Because E.C. did not then and does not now challenge the April 2006 order terminating reunification services, the focus now is on securing stability for her children, not on family preservation. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1344.) Thus, even assuming that E.C. did not receive notice of the September 2007 hearing, no harm has been done -- aside from the fact that she has not said she would have appeared had she received notice, the important fact is that she is now aware of the January 2008 hearing and may appear to contest the proposed permanent plan. (In re Phillip F. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 250, 260.)
Finally, E.C.’s request in her petition for an order permitting visitation must be made to the dependency court, not to us.
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JACKSON, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.