Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review Super. Ct. Nos. JUV509495, JUV509496, JUV509497, Nancy C. Williamsen, Commissioner.
Nadine Salim, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her children K.A., M.A., and L.A. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In September 2006, the social services agency (agency) removed petitioner’s five children, then eight-year-old L.H., seven-year-old R.H., five-year-old K.A., four-year-old M.A. and three-year-old L.A., from her custody because of her drug use and medical neglect. Petitioner was missing medical appointments for M.A. and L.A. who suffer from a rare heart condition and for K.A. who has chronic asthma. In addition, there was no food, furniture or electricity in the home and petitioner sent the children to the neighbors with notes asking for food and clothing and money for “crystal meth.”
At the time of the children’s removal, K., the presumed father of K.A., M.A., and L.A., was not involved with the children but initially expressed an interest in taking custody of them. R., the alleged father of L.H. and R.H., was an inmate in state prison scheduled to be released in May 2007. According to his counselor, he had made a “turnaround” and was participating in services and vocational training.
Pursuant to a dependency petition, the juvenile court ordered the children detained and set a mid-October 2006 jurisdiction/disposition hearing (hearing). The agency initially placed the children in foster homes in Stanislaus County but, by the time set for the hearing, R.H. and L.H. were residing in a foster home in San Joaquin County and K.A., M.A. and L.A. were residing in a foster home in Stanislaus County.
The hearing was continued and conducted in November 2006. The juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction, ordered the children removed from petitioner’s custody, and ordered reunification services for petitioner as well as for K. and R. The services plan included twice monthly sibling visitation.
The court also made key findings with respect to the five siblings. The court found that the children had significant sibling relationships, which should be maintained. However, the court also found that K.A., M.A., and L.A. were not placed nor was it appropriate that they be placed with R.H. and L.H. The court further found that the sibling relationship did not impact permanency planning because the concurrent permanency plan included ongoing sibling contact.
Reunification services were provided over the next twelve months. However, as petitioner concedes, she made no effort to complete any aspect of her reunification plan. (Writ petition at p. 1.) Neither did K. Consequently, at the twelve-month review hearing in October 2007, at which neither petitioner nor K. appeared, the juvenile court terminated their reunification services as to K.A., M.A., and L.A. and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption. The court also terminated petitioner’s reunification services as to R.H. and L.H. but continued services for R. who participated in services while in prison until his release in September 2007. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the juvenile court’s setting order jeopardized K.A., M.A., and L.A.’s future relationship with their half-siblings, R.H. and L.H., and was legal error. The alleged error derives from the court’s setting the section 366.26 hearing for K.A., M.A., and L.A. pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e) (subdivision (e)), without first considering their best interest both individually and presumably as part of a larger sibling group, which includes R.H. and L.H. Though petitioner concedes subdivision (e) pertains to proceedings conducted at the six-month rather than the 12-month review hearing, she nevertheless argues, without providing any supporting legal authority, the children’s individual best interest as well as preservation of their sibling relationships must be a consideration at the 12-month review hearing as well. Assuming petitioner has standing to challenge the court’s setting order on this issue [parents generally do not have standing to raise issues that address a child’s relationship with siblings (In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703)], we find no merit to her claim of error.
The juvenile court may set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan at the six-month review hearing pursuant to subdivision (e) where one member of a sibling group was under the age of three years on the date of removal and the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the parent failed to participate regularly in a reasonable plan of reunification and there is not a substantial likelihood the child will be returned to parental custody after another six months of reunification. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) The provisions of subdivision (e) do not apply in this case not only because the challenged order was issued at a 12-month rather than a six-month review hearing but also because none of the children were under the age of three years on the date of removal.
Where subdivision (e) does apply, the court must, as petitioner argues, consider the best interest of each child in the sibling group before proceeding to permanency planning for some or all of the members of the sibling group. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) Herein lies another problem with petitioner’s argument. All five children did not constitute a single sibling group. Rather they formed two sibling groups based on their father in common. The court recognized this at the dispositional hearing where it acknowledged a bond existed between all five siblings but found it was not appropriate that they all be placed together or that permanency for K.A., M.A., and L.A. should be impeded by their bond to R.H. and L.H. because ongoing sibling contact was part of the permanent plan. Consequently, the children were at all times on separate tracks for dependency purposes and petitioner had foreknowledge that they would ultimately be placed separately.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the juvenile court properly terminated petitioner’s reunification services and proceeded to permanency planning with respect to K.A., M.A., and L.A. Accordingly, we will deny the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.