writ petition requirement in California

2024Responding to L.D.’s argument and citing to In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (Cathina W.), DPSS further asserts that L.D. has provided no authority that the current matter should be treated similarly to the situation where a parent is not provided with notice of their right to file a writ petition to challenge an order setting a section 366.26 hearing.

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2019(See also Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 723 [where the agency disregarded a relative's timely request for placement, the relative is entitled to a § 361.3 hearing without having to file a § 388 petition].) Shauna claims that if she had the prior opportunity to file a writ petition under rule 8.452, she would have raised the issue of relative placement and therefore her current petition for writ of habeas corpus is properly before this court.

2018(See also In re Isabella G . (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708 , 723, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 64 [where the agency disregarded a relative's timely request for placement, the relative is entitled to a § 361.3 hearing without having to file a § 388 petition].) Shauna claims that if she had the prior opportunity to file a writ petition under rule 8.452, she would have raised the issue of relative placement and therefore her current petition for writ of habeas corpus is properly before this *396 court.

2018It states, "The power to order a reconsideration shall expire 30 days after the delivery or mailing of a decision to a respondent, or on the date set by the agency itself as the effective date of the decision if that date occurs prior to the expiration of the 30-day period." ( § 11521, subd. (a) ; see also § 11519, subd. (a).) Thus, when an agency makes its decision effective immediately, as the Department did here, it "eliminat[es] the 30-day period for reconsideration." ( De Cordoba v. Governing Board (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 155 , 158, 139 Cal.Rptr. 312 .) Section 11523 sets forth the limitatio

2018It states, "The power to order a reconsideration shall expire 30 days after the delivery or mailing of a decision to a respondent, or on the date set by the agency itself as the effective date of the decision if that date occurs prior to the expiration of the 30-day period." ( § 11521, subd. (a) ; see also § 11519, subd. (a).) Thus, when an agency makes its decision effective immediately, as the Department did here, it "eliminat[es] the 30-day period for reconsideration." ( De Cordoba v. Governing Board (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 155 , 158, 139 Cal.Rptr. 312 .) Section 11523 sets forth the limitatio

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2025(In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 624-625 .) The failure to take a writ from a nonappealable dispositional order forfeits any challenge to that order[.] [However, an] except[ion] [exists] if the juvenile court fails to advise a parent of the writ petition requirement.

2023(In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 624-625 .) The failure to take a writ from a nonappealable dispositional order forfeits any challenge to that order[.] [However, an] except[ion] [exists] if the juvenile court fails to advise a parent of the writ petition requirement.

2014(See § 366.26, subd. (l); In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 206 (Janee J.) [petition for 6 writ review is “the exclusively prescribed vehicle for appellate review of an order setting a .26 hearing”].) I.

2013Nor is the detriment finding made at the 6- month review subject to challenge through this appeal. “ ‘A challenge to the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed.’ ” (In re Jesse W. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 349, 355 .) Courts will disregard a waiver if due process so requires (In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 208 ; see also In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1155 , fn. 7 5), but such a consideration arises only where the alleged error “fundamentally undermined the statutory schem

2004(In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 426 ].) The Agency asserts Ray has waived his right to argue about alleged deficiencies in sibling visitation by not bringing a writ petition under rule 39.

2004(In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 426 ].) The Agency asserts Ray has waived his right to argue about alleged deficiencies in sibling visitation by not bringing a writ petition under rule 39.

2024However, an order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing is not appealable unless “[a] petition for extraordinary writ review was filed in a timely manner.” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1); see also In re 27 X.Z. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1243 , 1248–1249.) “The failure to take a writ from a nonappealable dispositional order forfeits any challenge to that order, except if the juvenile court fails to advise a parent of the writ petition requirement.

2016(See Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 866-867 [permitting augmentation of record with ICWA notices not filed in the juvenile court until the writ proceeding where appellant was challenging ICWA notice rather than termination of parental rights]; In re A.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 832 , 841, 843 [permitting augmentation with an ICWA form from a separate dependency case, noting the ICWA issue was "distinct from the substantive merits"].) 5 The Agency acknowledges that its motion to augment is untimely under rule 8.452(e)(2), which provides that "[a] respondent [to a writ pe

2013Thus, even though the parent failed to file a writ petition, he or she can still challenge, on appeal, the order setting a section 366.26 hearing. [Citations.]” (Athena P., supra, at p. 625; see also In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838-839 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two]; In re T.W., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 729 .) Here, the parents were present at the time the court set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

2013Nor is the detriment finding made at the 6- month review subject to challenge through this appeal. “ ‘A challenge to the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed.’ ” (In re Jesse W. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 349, 355 .) Courts will disregard a waiver if due process so requires (In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 208 ; see also In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1155 , fn. 7 5), but such a consideration arises only where the alleged error “fundamentally undermined the statutory schem

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [

2011(See In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ] [“[mother] contends, the Department concedes, and we agree that, because she did not receive notice of her right to file a writ petition challenging the dependency court’s termination of reunification services, [mother] may challenge that order on this appeal”]; Athena P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623, 625 [the mother did not attend dispositional hearing at which setting order was made and the clerk failed to give her mailed notice of the writ petition requirement; “[t]he Department concedes that, as a result, [