Filed 2/24/14 Michelle M. v. Superior Court CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MICHELLE M., Petitioner,

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent;
STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. F068571 (Super. Ct. No. 510634)



### OPINION

THE COURT * ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q

. Ameral , Judge. Thomas P. White, f

or Petitio ner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering , County Counsel, and Robin Gozzo , Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.2

Petitioner Michelle M. ( m other) seeks review by extraordinary writ of the juvenile court’s order setting a d ate of May 8, 2014 , for a permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) 1 for her son , J ordan . The memorandum attached to the petition, however, raises issues that ar ose out of the 12

- month and 18

- month review hearing s, but none that arose out of the December 16, 2013, hearing where the permanency planning hearing was set. We deny the petition. FACTS On January 26, 2012, then four

- year
- old Jordan, and his three half siblings , then 15

- year
- old Miranda, 13

- year
- old Savannah, and 18

- month

- old R. , were detained. On January 30, 2012, the Stanislaus County Community Services A gency ( a gency) filed a petition with respect to J ordan and his siblings alleg ing that their parents failed to protect the m (§ 300, subd. (b) ) , left them without any provi sion for support (§ 300, subd. ( g) ), and that they were at substantial risk of abuse or neglect because of prior sibling abuse or neglect (§ 300, subd. (j) ). The petition also alleged that m other had a long history of drug abuse and domestic violence in h er relationships and that Jordan’s father ( f ather) had a history of methamphetamine use and domestic violence. Father’s whereabouts were unknown

. According to the d etention report filed in conjunction with the petition , on January 2, 2012, after mother and R. ’s father were arrested for robbery , the y made arrangements for R. to live with his adult half sister , while Jordan remained at the residence with his
two older sisters , with an adult neighbor checking on them

. On January 3 , 2012, a soci a l

wo rker who went to the residence found it did not have electricity or running water and two cases of needles and syringes within rea ch of the children

. Jordan , Miranda and Savannah were eventually placed in foster care together and R. was placed with his adult half sister.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.3

On March 21, 2012, the court sustained the petition and approved a re unification case plan by the a gency
. On April 10, 2012, father passed away in Las Vegas

. On April 21, 2012, m ot her began residing at Redwood s Family Center (Red wood s ) , a clean and sober living facility, with her newborn daughter, A.M., where she participated in a drug treatment program specifically tailored to mothers with children under the age of five. On April 22, 2012, Jordan and his two half sisters were placed in another foster home

. On June 1, 2012, during an interim review hearing , the court authorized o vernight visits with mother in a clean and sober living facility at the discretion of the a gency
. In July 2012, J ordan spent a week with m other bec ause his foster parents were only able to take Miranda and Savannah on a trip they took that month. O n September 13, 2012, at the six

- month review hearing , the court authorized continuation of reunification services and a t rial visit for J ordan with m oth er at the discretion of the agency. On September 14, 2012, Jordan went to live with mother at Redwoods for a trial visit. On March 6, 2013, a t the 12

- month review hearing , the court ordered reunification services continued. It also found that the retur n of Jordan to mother would create a substa n tial risk of detriment to J ordan ’ s physical and emotional well

- being. In April 2013, a teacher at First Step reported that the previous week m other told her that another resident ’s child had act ed inappropriat ely with J ordan by putting h er hands in Jordan’s shirt and massaging his chest at a slumber party in the other resident’s

room
. Although m other had previously shared “ inappropriate sexual concerns ” about the other resident’s child , she nevertheless a llowe d J ordan to attend the slumber party in the other resident ’s room. Mother also told the teacher that after the party Jordan talked4

about wanting to play the “humping game

. ” Additionally, Redwoods staff had previously spoken with mother about Jordan tryin g to “hump” his younger sibling, R

. On A p ril 24, 2013, staff from Redwood s observed J ordan unsupervised , under a
ta ble with the child of another resident , with his pants do w n and the other child ’ s mo ut h on J ordan ’s private parts. T his occur r ed shor tly after the m anager at Redwood s had a meeting with m other to discuss the importance of supervising her children at all times. On May 2, 2013 , Jordan’s trial visit with mother was terminated and he was placed into foster care because m other was struggli ng with her own mental health issues, struggling to arra n ge child care and man age her own services , and she was not p r oviding enough parenting or supervision for J ordan

. O n August 22, 2013, at the 18

- month review hearing , the court terminated reunificat ion services . Nevertheless, it ordered that mother was to continue t o have one

wee k ly visit with J ordan of up to two hours in duration. T he court also allowed J ordan to have overnight and extended visits with mother in a clean and sober li ving environm e n t at the discretion of the a gency , ordered a plan of long

- term foster care , and set a review hearing (§ 366.3) for Febru ary 18, 2014. On September 3, 2013, m other filed a notice of appeal relating to issues that arose at the 1 2

- month and 18

- month review hearing s ( In re Miranda M. et al. , F067878)

. On November 6, 2013, the a gency filed a R equest to C hange a C ourt O rder (§ 388) , asking the court to modify m other’s visitation with J ordan because J ordan was going to be placed with a relative in Alameda Co unty. T h e a gency also requested that

m other’s visitation be reduced to one hour one time per week , that the a gency be allowed to provide tra n sportat i on by A mtrak or bus to Alameda only o ne time per month , and that mother be responsible for arranging and p aying for the other three trips per month. O n December 16, 2013, the court granted the agency’s mot ion. It also set the permanency planning hearing for May 8, 2014.5

O n December 19, 2013, m other filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition with respect to Jordan

. On Janu a ry 21, 2014, m other filed a petition for extraordinary writ with respect to J ordan, challenging the setting of a permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26) , bu t raising no issues with re s pect to any other orders the court issued a t the December 1 6 , 2013, hearing. DISCUSSION In her memorandum of points and authorities, m other raises issues relating to orders the court made at the 12

- month and 18

- month review hearing s . She does not, however, raise any issues relating to any order s the court made at the December 1 6 , 2013, hearing wh ere the court set the permane ncy planning hearing. California Rules of Court , rules 8.450

- 8.452 govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court. The purpose of writ proceed ings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court’s order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a)

. ) Further, c ase law holds that “[a]ll orders issued at a hearing in which a section 366.26 hearing is ordered are subject to section 366.26, sub division ( l ) and must be reviewed by extraordinary writ

. ” ( In re Tabitha W. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 811, 817 , italics added

. ) However, we are not aware of, nor has m other cited, any authority that allows a party to raise issues related to orders that wer e not made at the hearing where the date for the section 366.26 hearing was set. Therefore, since m other does not raise any issues relating to the orders the court made at the December 1 6 , 2013, hearing where it set a date for the 366.26 hearing, we d eny her petition. DISPOSITION The petition is summarily d enied

. Our decision is final as to this court immediately.