In re M.M. CA6

Filed 2/23/15 In re M.M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re M.M., a Person Coming Under the H041120 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. DP002844)

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.M.,

Defendant;

v.

L.M.,

Objector and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION M.M. is the child at issue in this juvenile dependency case. At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on June 6, 2014, the juvenile court bypassed reunification services to her mother, J.M., and set a Welfare and Institutions Code

section 366.261 permanency planning hearing. At the June 6, 2014 hearing, the juvenile court also denied a number of section 388 petitions and a request for de facto parent status filed by the maternal grandmother, L.M. The mother and the maternal grandmother both previously filed petitions for extraordinary writs seeking review of the juvenile court’s orders at the June 6, 2014 hearing. This court denied those petitions in an opinion filed on September 11, 2014. (J.M. v. Superior Court (Sept. 11, 2014, H041083) [nonpub. opn.].) The maternal grandmother also filed a notice of appeal following the June 6, 2014 hearing. The mother did not file a notice of appeal. In this opinion, we determine that the maternal grandmother lacks standing to raise claims on behalf of the mother, and that the law of the case doctrine precludes us from reconsidering the claims the maternal grandmother raises on behalf of herself. We will therefore dismiss the maternal grandmother’s appeal as moot.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We reviewed the facts and proceedings up to and including the section 366.26 hearing in detail in J.M. v. Superior Court, supra, H041083, at pages 2 through 11. We briefly summarize that background here. On January 16, 2014, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (the Department) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect] and (g) [no provision for support], alleging that the child came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.2 The child was less than one month old at the time, and she had been born while the mother was in jail. The mother had entrusted the maternal grandmother to care