In re A.H. CA2/4

Filed 7/16/14 In re A.H. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re A.H., a Person Coming Under the B251288 Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. CK57697) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marguerite Downing, Judge. Affirmed. Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The court’s exercise of dependency jurisdiction over seven children of appellant E.H. and her husband, J.H.1 has resulted in several appellate opinions regarding petitions involving various allegations against parents. In this most recent matter, mother appeals from the court’s denial of her request for a contested hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3 (statutory references are to this code). We conclude that section 366.3 applies only after a permanent plan has been adopted by the court under section 366.26. Since that had not yet occurred in this case when mother made her request, we conclude that the procedure was inapplicable and that no error occurred.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY We need not address this family’s dependency history in detail in this opinion since the issue before us is procedural. We take portions of this summary from our most recent opinion regarding this family, In re S.H. (case No. B245942), a nonpublished opinion filed in December 2013 (S.H.), which provides a detailed summary of the dependency history. The children who are the subject of the current proceeding are A.H. (born in 2003) and her brothers, Wi.H. (born in 2004), B.H. (born in 2006), J.H. (born in 2008), Wa.H. (born in 2009), and E.H. (born in 2010). This appeal does not involve S.H. (born in 2012 and the subject of a separate dependency petition) or the daughter to whom mother gave birth in August 2013.2 In our earlier decision in In re A.H. (July 20, 2012, B236022 [nonpub.opn.].), we affirmed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders as to the six older children based on allegations that father hit A.H., giving her a black eye, that both parents