Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven L. Berman, Juvenile Court Referee, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK58959
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Meta M., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
This is the third proceeding in this case. In the first, Meta M. petitioned this court for an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) setting aside the juvenile court’s July 26, 2006 order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider termination of her parental rights over her two teenaged daughters, K.M. and S.M. We denied the petition. (Meta M. v. Superior Court (Oct. 30, 2006, B192596) [nonpub. opn.].)
All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The second proceeding involved a purported appeal from a number of orders, including the jurisdiction/disposition order sustaining the allegations of the section 300 petition and declaring K.M. and S.M. to be dependent children of the court. We affirmed. (In re K.M./Department of Children and Family Services v. Meta M. (Nov. 30, 2006, B187821 c/w B189305) [nonpub. opn.].)
In this proceeding, Meta M. purports to appeal from orders dated “5-02-05 to 5-24-07 – wrongful initial judicial determination of a WIC 300 [petition, ]guardianship award to Stefanie M[., ]ineffective counsel.” Again, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2005, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c), alleging that then 16-year-old K.M. and then 14-year-old S.M. were at risk of serious physical and emotional harm due to Meta M.’s inability to care for them and her emotional abuse of them. K.M. and S.M. had been living with Meta M. and her boyfriend, Michael G. The girls had left home and went to stay with their maternal aunt, Stephanie M. The girls did not get along with Michael G. and believed that Meta M.’s and Michael G.’s demands on them were unreasonable. The girls were detained and placed into foster care.
During the course of the proceedings, DNA test results established that Michael G. was not K.M.’s biological father. The juvenile court found that Michael G. was not K.M.’s alleged or presumed father. The girls’ alleged father was in prison in Washington and not involved in the proceedings.
At the August 1, 2005 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the section 300 petition and declared K.M. and S.M. to be dependent children of the court. Despite Meta M.’s waiver of reunification services, the court ordered DCFS to provide reunification services to Meta M. and the girls.
In November 2005, K.M. was removed from her foster family and placed with her maternal aunt, Stephanie M. By June 2006, both K.M. and S.M. were living with Stephanie M. They insisted that they did not want to reunify with Meta M. as long as she remained with Michael G.
Throughout the course of the proceedings, various problems arose with visitation, between Meta M. and DCFS, her counsel, and the court. Due to Meta M.’s refusal to recognize the problems caused by her behavior and to make the changes necessary, on July 26, 2006, the court terminated reunification services and set the case for a permanent plan hearing. We upheld the court’s determination as supported by substantial evidence. (Meta M. v. Superior Court, supra, B192596, at pp. 13-16.)
For the February 27, 2007 hearing, DCFS reported that K.M. and S.M. were doing relatively well in school, although they were having problems with truancy. Their therapist and Children’s Social Worker (CSW) had been addressing that problem, and the girls had been working on improving their school performance and attendance. Both girls planned on remaining with Stephanie M. after graduating from high school and on continuing their education after graduation.
DCFS recommended that the court continue its jurisdiction over K.M., although she had turned 18, because of difficulty in obtaining her birth certificate from the State of Oregon. Without her birth certificate, she was unable to obtain a social security card or driver’s license, making it difficult for her to continue her education or obtain employment. The court retained jurisdiction and continued the matter.
Transitional Independent Living Plans (ILP) were prepared for the girls in March 2007. On March 22, 2007, the court again continued jurisdiction over the girls. It ordered foster care as the girls’ permanent plan.
On May 4, 2007, Meta M. filed a “report” in which she claimed that “[t]he children are prisoners of the dependency court, DCFS and Stephanie M[.] I am asking for their immediate release and immediate reparations from the state and/or county for damages against S[.M.]. K[.M.], Michael and I.” Meta M. also wrote to the CSW, requesting that DCFS take back the false allegations against her and Michael G., take the children away from Stephanie M., and stop treating K.M. and S.M. as objects and allowing them to be abused by DCFS and the court.
Thereafter, DCFS recommended that the juvenile court terminate its jurisdiction over S.M. and transfer jurisdiction to Kin-Gap. On May 24, 2007, the juvenile court did so. On May 30, 2007, Meta M. filed her notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Counsel appointed for Meta M. filed a letter stating that under In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, he was unable to file a brief on Meta M.’s behalf. On July 18, 2007, we notified Meta M. that she could file a brief on her own behalf. On November 7, 2007, she filed a brief, and on November 9, 2007, she filed a motion to augment the record.
In her brief, Meta M. again challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings, as well as its placement of K.M. and S.M. with Stephanie M. As we have stated previously (In re K.M./Department of Children and Family Services v. Meta M., supra, B187821 c/w B189305, at pp. 12-13), our jurisdiction is dependent upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal. (Adoption of Alexander S. (1998) 44 Cal.3d 857, 864; In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 189.) An appellant “may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed.” (In re Pedro N., supra, at p. 189.)
Under rule 8.400(d) of the California Rules of Court, a notice of appeal from a juvenile court order must be filed within 60 days. Meta M.’s notice of appeal was filed on May 30, 2007. It is timely as to orders entered March 31, 2007 or later. The time for challenging the juvenile court’s jurisdictional, dispositional and placement orders is long past; we have no jurisdiction to review the challenged orders. (In re Pedro N., supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 189; see In re K.M./Department of Children and Family Services v. Meta M., supra, B187821 c/w B189305, at pp. 12-13, 14.)
The only orders we have jurisdiction to review are dated May 7 and May 24, 2007. Meta M. makes no specific challenges to these orders. We consequently affirm them. (Title G. & T. Co. v. Fraternal Finance Co. (1934) 220 Cal. 362, 363; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, pp. 627-629.)
We deny Meta M.’s motion to augment the record. The documents with which she seeks to augment the record are irrelevant to our resolution of this appeal. (Steele v. International Air Race Assn. (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 61, 63.)
The orders are affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, Acting P. J., VOGEL, J.