In re G.C. CA3

Filed 2/26/16 In re G.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re G.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C078883 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD233988) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.O., mother of the minor, appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26,

1

395.)1 She contends the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services. We dismiss the appeal because review of the challenged order is precluded. We dispense with a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural background as it is unnecessary to the disposition of this appeal. It is sufficient to state that a section 300 petition was filed on behalf of the minor on August 19, 2013. The juvenile court declared the minor a dependent child of the court and ordered reunification services for mother. At the October 10, 2014, 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The contested section 366.26 hearing took place on March 25, 2015. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated parental rights. Mother appeals from the March 25, 2015, section 366.26 order terminating her parental rights. Nonetheless, the sole substantive contention raised on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in entering its October 2014 12-month review hearing order terminating her reunification services and setting the section 366.26 hearing. Mother cannot challenge the order setting the section 366.26 hearing because she failed to file a petition for extraordinary writ review. An order setting a section 366.26 hearing and “any [other] order, regardless of its nature, made at the hearing at which a setting order is entered” must be challenged by filing a petition for extraordinary writ review. (In re Anthony B. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1024; id. at pp. 1021, 1023-1024; § 366.26, subd. (l); see Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452.)2 Generally, a party cannot challenge such orders in an appeal unless the party timely filed a petition for writ review and “[t]he petition . . . was summarily denied or otherwise not decided on the merits.” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1)(C); id. subd. (l)(1)(A), (l)(2).)