Maria C. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 5/15/25 Maria C. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Maria C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE A172647 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. JD23-3030) Respondent; SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Petitioner Maria C. (Mother) filed a writ petition to set aside the juvenile court’s order setting a hearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26, to adopt a permanent plan for her 17-year-old daughter, Mari S. Mother contends the court should have bypassed the section 366.26 hearing and selected “ ‘another planned permanent living arrangement’ ” (APPLA) for Mari because Mari is not a proper subject for adoption, and no one is willing to accept legal guardianship of her. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(3).) Mother also requests a temporary stay of the section 366.26 hearing, which is

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.

currently set for June 18, 2025, pending our review of her petition. For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition and the request for a stay. I. BACKGROUND Given the limited nature of this writ proceeding, we need only briefly summarize the history of the case and provide more detail when discussing the relevant facts. In March 2023, the juvenile court adjudged Mari a dependent child of the court and removed her from Mother’s custody due in part to allegations that Mother abused alcohol and marijuana and had mental health issues that impeded her ability to properly care for Mari.2 Mother initially complied with the reunification plan, and at the 12- month review hearing, the juvenile court ordered Mari’s return to Mother’s custody pursuant to a family maintenance plan. However, approximately two months later, the juvenile court granted the San Francisco Human Services Agency’s (Agency) request for an order requiring Mother to take a substance use test after the Agency received reports that Mother had been drinking alcohol and was not taking her psychotropic medication. Mother subsequently refused to cooperate with the Agency, so Mari was again removed from her custody. In June 2024, the Agency filed a section 387 petition alleging that the previous disposition had not been effective in protecting Mari, and that Mari no longer wished to live with Mother. The Agency filed a detention report in connection with the petition. A few days later, the juvenile court ordered Mari detained in foster care and set a hearing on the section 387 petition.