Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Laura S.

Opinion

TURNER, P. J. I. Introduction

This appeal is from dependency proceedings under the Welfare and Institutions Code.1 Laura S., the mother, appeals, following termination of her parental rights pursuant to section 366.26. On appeal, she raises issues concerning orders pursuant to section 366.22 terminating family reunification services, referring her minor daughter, Julie S., for adoptive planning, and setting the section 366.26 hearing. The mother previously filed a petition for extraordinary writ challenging the findings and orders pursuant to section 366.22. That petition was decided on the merits. Under these circumstances, the order setting a section 366.26 hearing is not appealable following the [990]termination of parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1); Cal. Rules of Court,2 rules 39.1B(d), 1435(b), and 1436.5(c); see Guillermo G. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1172-1173 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 748].) Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

II. Discussion

.............................*

As a matter of statutory law, an appeal from an order setting a section 366.26 hearing is only available if a petition for an extraordinary writ challenging the order was filed and was summarily denied or otherwise not decided on the merits. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1); rules 39.1B(d), 1435(b), and 1436.5(c); see Guillermo G. v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1172-1173.) Subdivision (l)(1) of section 366.26 provides: “An order by the court that a hearing pursuant to this section be held is not appealable at anytime unless all of the following applies: [*][] (A) A petition for extraordinary writ review was filed in a timely manner. [*][] (B) The petition substantively addressed the specific issues to be challenged and supported that challenge by an adequate record. [*][] (C) The petition for extraordinary writ review was summarily denied or otherwise not decided on the merits." (Italics added.) The statutory language is clear and unambiguous. There is no uncertainty as to the legislative intent. As a result, we need not look further. We must enforce the statute according to the plain meaning of its terms. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 280 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 241, 902 P.2d 259]; Curl v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1292, 1300 [276 Cal.Rptr. 49, 801 P.2d 292].)