In Re Nolan W.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS OPINION IS DEPUBLISHED UPON GRANTING OF PETITION FOR REVIEW. THE OPINION APPEARS BELOW WITH A GRAY BACKGROUND.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1501 OPINION

Kayla W. challenges a juvenile court judgment requiring her to serve 300 days in custody for her contempt of orders that she participate in the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS) program. She contends the juvenile court does not have authority to incarcerate parents for substance abuse or coerce substance abuse treatment, and orders related to the SARMS program are unconstitutional and against public policy. She also argues she received ineffective assistance of counsel. We hold a challenge to a juvenile court's order regarding contempt of SARMS orders may not be taken by way of appeal, and the exclusive remedy is by a petition for extraordinary writ. We consider Kayla's challenge to the court's order as a writ petition. We conclude her challenge is not moot, and hold the court abused its discretion by imposing a 300-day sentence for her contempt of SARMS orders. We do not discuss her challenges to the constitutionality of the orders or her argument she received ineffective assistance of counsel.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 5, 2006, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) petitioned on behalf of Kayla's child, infant Nolan W., under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivision (b) on the basis of Kayla's drug abuse. Kayla and Nolan tested positive for amphetamines at the time of Nolan's birth, and Kayla admitted methamphetamine and alcohol use. Kayla had no contact with Nolan's father and did not know how to reach him. The social worker reported Kayla agreed she needed residential substance abuse treatment. At the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on July 25, 2006, the court found the allegations of the petition true, ordered Nolan placed with his maternal aunt and ordered Kayla to enroll in SARMS, advising her that failure to enroll in or attend the SARMS program could result in findings of contempt and for each finding the court could sentence her for up to five days in jail. Kayla signed an acknowledgement that she had received a copy of the order. On July 31, 2006, Kayla enrolled in SARMS, but she did not comply with SARMS's requirements, and on September 11 the court issued a bench warrant for her arrest. On October 18 at an ex parte hearing, the court *Page 1503 terminated her from SARMS because she had been out of contact with the program for more than 60 days. In November 2006 the Agency filed a supplemental petition under section 387, seeking to place Nolan in foster care because his aunt was no longer willing to provide care. Kayla appeared at the jurisdictional hearing on December 4. The court found she had 60 counts of noncompliance with SARMS and sentenced her to 300 days in custody, but stayed imposition of sentence on the condition she enroll in and complete a residential program. At a hearing on January 8, 2007, Kayla said she planned to enter a residential program that day. However, she did not enter a drug treatment program and at the six-month review hearing on January 24, the court issued a warrant for her arrest, terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing. At a special hearing on February 8, 2007, the court lifted the stay of the previously imposed 300-day sentence and ordered Kayla to serve 300 days in custody. On March 12 the court ordered her released from custody after she had served only 32 days.