In re M.M. CA4/3

Filed 4/29/14 In re M.M. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re M.M. G049969

on Habeas Corpus. (Super. Ct. No. DP022438)

OPINION

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary G. Bischoff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for M.M.

Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Julie J.

Agin, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent Orange County Social Services Agency. * * *

M.M. (mother) has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting her trial lawyer performed ineffectively at the June 2013, 12-month permanency review by stipulating to proposed orders and findings terminating reunification services concerning her son Timothy M. (born August 2009), and permitting the juvenile court to schedule a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (all statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated). She seeks a writ vacating the juvenile court’s September 2013 order terminating her parental rights, and either six months of additional reunification services, or an order directing the juvenile court to conduct another 12- month review. For the reasons expressed below, we deny mother’s petition.1 I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In a declaration accompanying her habeas corpus petition, mother asserts she retained counsel Robert Curatola to represent her in the juvenile court proceedings. She communicated with him on several occasions and expressed her desire to “fight for [her] son’s return to [her] care” at the 12-month review. Curatola told her she “was going to get [her] son back because [she] had done what the court asked of [her] and had” maintained 10 hours of weekly unmonitored visits with her son as well as telephone calls. At the contested 12-month review, Curatola “waived [her] rights and consented to the order terminating” services and did not object when the court scheduled the section 366.26 hearing. Mother alleges he did not discuss the stipulation with her in advance of the hearing, he did not advise her of the ramifications of the stipulation, and she would not have agreed to the stipulation/waiver given her compliance with the case plan and regular visits with her son. At the 12-month review, the court did not ask her if she agreed to the stipulation, and she did not understand what “stipulate” meant.