N.A. v. Super. Ct. CA4/3

Filed 7/21/15 N.A. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

N.A.,

Petitioner;

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE G051893 COUNTY, (Super. Ct. Nos. DP023998, Respondent; DP023999, & DP025567)

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES OPINION AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for writ of mandate/prohibition 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. Frank Ospino, Public Defender, Laura Jose, Assistant Public Defender, Michael T. Mooney and Dennis M. Nolan, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.

Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen, Supervising Deputy County Counsel, and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest. Law Offices of Harold LaFlamme and JoEllen Alicie for Minors.

* * *

Petitioner N.A. (mother) seeks extraordinary relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) in the dependency cases of her children O.A., H.A., and A.A. These cases followed an unusual path, in that an earlier Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing was cancelled (upon stipulation of the parties) to give mother one last chance to 1 reunify with her children. But mother’s final chance was conditioned on a zero tolerance drug testing regimen. When mother tested positive for methamphetamine, the court immediately rescheduled the section 366.26 hearing without conducting a review hearing. The question presented is whether the juvenile court deprived mother of due process when it declined to proceed with a review hearing or listen to mother’s testimony, which (according to an offer of proof) would have amounted to her denying she actually ingested drugs. We deny mother’s petition. There was no due process violation and any error that might have occurred was harmless.