Ricardo v. v. SUPERIOR COURT

54 Cal.Rptr.3d 223 (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 419 147 Cal.App.4th 424 RICARDO V., Petitioner,

v.

The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Real Party in Interest.

No. B194013. Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One.

February 1, 2007. [224] Emma Castro, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Judith A. Luby, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Children's Law Center of Los Angeles and Martha Matthews, Los Angeles, for Minor A.V.

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION.[*]

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Ricardo V. (father), father of dependent daughter A.V., petitions for extraordinary writ review of orders setting a permanency planning hearing, terminating reunification services, and granting a Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) petition requesting that father's custody, pending the rehearing of a referee's order granting custody to father, be modified to allow monitored visits only. (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 366.22, 366.26, and 388;[1] Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 former rule 38.1 (hereafter Rule).) We deny the writ.

In the published portion of the opinion, we conclude that a referee's order is not automatically vacated when a party's request for rehearing before a judge is granted. Pursuant to section 250, that order remains in force until a new order is made after rehearing of the original order or pursuant to other procedures authorizing the court to modify an existing order.

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we hold that if any error resulted from the dependency court's alternate reading of section 250, such error was harmless, that at any rate father failed to preserve this issue by not raising it in the trial court, and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's orders.