Anthony D. v. Sup. Ct. of Orange Cty.

Harold LaFlamme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Craig E. Arthur for Minors.

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

RYLAARSDAM, J.

In this one opinion, we address a writ petition, an appeal, and a petition for habeas corpus by Anthony D., father of Danielle and Christopher (Father). We also consider a motion to dismiss the appeal by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA). These consolidated appellate proceedings arise out of two dependency hearings in the juvenile court: (1) the twelve-month review hearing for Danielle, held on July 23, 1997, at which reunification services were terminated and the case was referred to a permanency hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26; and (2) the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for Christopher, held on July 30 and August 6, 1997, at which reunification services were denied outright and the case was also referred to a permanency hearing. (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.)

Father, incarcerated at the time, filed a timely notice of intent and petition for relief under California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B from the…

In this one opinion, we address a writ petition, an appeal, and a petition for habeas corpus by Anthony D., father of Danielle and Christopher (Father). We also consider a motion to dismiss the appeal by the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA). These consolidated appellate proceedings arise out of two dependency hearings in the juvenile court: (1) the twelve-month review hearing for Danielle, held on July 23, 1997, at which reunification services were terminated and the case was referred to a permanency hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26; and (2) the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing for Christopher, held on July 30 and August 6, 1997, at which reunification services were denied outright and the case was also referred to a permanency hearing. (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.)

Father, incarcerated at the time, filed a timely notice of intent and petition for relief under California Rules of Court, rule 39. IB from the orders made *152 regarding Danielle on July 23. (All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.) This was followed by a separate notice of intent,…

I concur in the judgment. I write separately only to underscore my agreement with the majority’s suggestion that a visitation order made contemporaneously with an order terminating reunification services is no longer appealable. Any such challenge must be made by petition for extraordinary writ. This view runs counter to this court’s opinion in In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 177 ], an opinion in which I concurred. But times, and legislative directives, have changed.

Petitioner’s application for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 8, 1998.