In Re Taya C.

Robert D. Frank, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [*] ]

OPINION

NARES, J.

Penny H. (Penny) and Robert C. (Robert), parents of dependent child Taya C. (Taya), petition [2] for extraordinary relief after the court, at a twelve-month review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions [3] Code section 366.21, found Taya would not likely be returned to their custody within six months, terminated reunification services, and set a hearing under section 366.26 to select a permanent home [4] for Taya.

Penny and Robert contend section 366.26, subdivision (k), [5] providing for review of the order setting the hearing only by petition for extraordinary writ, is unconstitutional because it (1) violates due process in that a petitioner is not entitled to file a reply brief, orally argue, receive a written opinion and petition for rehearing, and (2) violates equal protection of the laws by providing a greater scope of review to parents of children placed in long-term foster care. The parents also raise other contentions, arguing that the reunification services were inadequate and other findings of the trial court were not…