In Re Sean E.

3 Cal.App.4th 1594 (1992) 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 193 In re SEAN E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARY J., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. D014275. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

February 28, 1992. [1596] COUNSEL

Lynne G. McGinnis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel, Susan Strom, Chief Deputy County Counsel, James H. Wellman and Gary Bubis, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Margie G. Woods, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

OPINION

WIENER, J.

Mary J., the mother of Sean E. and Seana E., born on April 15, 1989, appeals from the judgment terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (b)(1).[1] We decide the court's ruling granting Mary's section 388[2] motion vacated its previous order scheduling the section 366.26 hearing. Absent the legal predicate for that hearing the court did not have the power to terminate Mary's parental rights. We must therefore reverse the judgment.

I

For analytical convenience we depart from our usual form of opinion in which we start with a narrative of the factual and procedural background before discussing the legal issues. Here we first comment briefly on the pertinent statutory provisions governing dependency proceedings so that we more easily identify and examine the dispositive issue involving the interplay between sections 366.26 and 388.

II

(1) After the juvenile court acquires jurisdiction under section 300, it proceeds along a legislatively mandated time grid defining when and under what circumstances it may act. Generally the legislative track requires the