Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JJV056029
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
Rosa S., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lang, County Counsel, and P. Jarrett Cline, Deputy Counsel Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
OPINION
Petitioner in propria persona seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent court’s order issued at a post-permanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3 ) setting a section 366.26 hearing. 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
Dependency proceedings have been ongoing in the case of petitioner’s children, R.L., R.R., and R.J., since 2003 when they were detained by the juvenile court because of their parents’, petitioner and Ralph’s, domestic violence, substance abuse, and untreated mental illness. The children are now 13, 10, and 6 years of age respectively.
Petitioner and Ralph were provided reunification services. Petitioner’s services included a referral for inpatient dual diagnosis treatment because of her combined mental health diagnoses and substance dependence. Because she did not receive inpatient treatment, the juvenile court found services were not reasonable at the contested six-month review hearing in October 2003. That was subsequently resolved when petitioner was referred through the county adult mental health agency for individual therapy and medication monitoring. At the 12-month review hearing in March 2004, the court found petitioner was provided reasonable services.
Despite continuing services, including family maintenance, petitioner’s emotional volatility persisted and Ralph was unable to part with her for the children’s best interest. In September 2004, the juvenile court sustained a supplemental petition (§ 387), ordered the children removed from Ralph’s custody, and set a section 366.26 hearing to adopt a permanent plan.
In March 2005, the juvenile court ordered adoption as the permanent plan for the three children and ordered a further section 366.26 hearing in September 2005. We affirmed the court’s order (F047925).
In September 2005, the court ordered all three children into a planned permanent living arrangement with their foster parents with a specific goal of guardianship. The permanent plan remained unchanged until the court terminated petitioner and Ralph’s parental rights as to R.J. in June 2007. The court continued R.L. and R.R. in their previously ordered placement plan and set a review hearing for November 2007.
Petitioner appealed from the court’s termination order in a case pending before this court (F053358).
In its report for the November review hearing, the social services agency (agency) informed the court that R.L. and R.R. did not want to be adopted and that petitioner and Ralph wanted them returned to their care. Consequently, the agency recommended the court continue the children in long-term foster care.
On November 7, 2007, the juvenile court conducted an uncontested permanency plan review hearing as to R.L. and R.R. Proceedings convened in chambers because R.R. wanted to tell the court out of the presence of her parents that she wanted to be adopted by her foster parents. Based on R.R.’s request, the court advised the attorneys it was ordering a section 366.26 hearing as to R.R. Back in open court, with petitioner and Ralph present, the court continued R.L. in a planned permanent living arrangement with a goal of legal guardianship and ordered R.R. into the same arrangement but with a goal of adoption. The court set a section 366.26 hearing as to R.R. and a review hearing as to R.L. The court also reduced petitioner and Ralph’s visitation to supervised monthly visitation. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks extraordinary writ relief on behalf of R.L. and R.R. Further, she seeks relief from “termination of parental rights” and claims as error the juvenile court’s failure to refer her for dual diagnosis treatment as ordered back in March 2004. There are several reasons why this court cannot grant the relief requested as we now explain.
First, extraordinary writ relief is only available from the findings and orders issued at the hearing at which the juvenile court sets the section 366.26 hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).) Since the court only set a section 366.26 hearing as to R.R., any findings and orders issued at the November 2007 hearing as to R.L. are not reviewable by writ petition.
Further, since termination of parental rights and consideration of adoption as a permanent plan occur at the section 366.26 hearing, which has yet to occur, that issue is not ripe for our review.
Finally, according to the appellate record, the issue of dual diagnosis treatment was resolved by the 12-month review hearing in March 2004. According to the agency, petitioner was provided mental health and substance abuse services to address her dual diagnosis. If that was not true, it was incumbent upon petitioner to appeal from the court’s 12-month review reasonable services finding. Having failed to do so, she waived the issue for our review. (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811-812.) We find no error on this record.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.