In Re Malcolm D.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 906 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 907 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 908 OPINION Pauline D. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. Inst. Code, § 366.26 ) with respect to her son, Malcolm. 1 She contends she did not receive proper notice of the section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, and the juvenile court at the section 366.26 hearing erroneously granted her attorney's motion to withdraw as her counsel. On review, we conclude although the mother received notice as prescribed by statute, the court did violate her statutory right to counsel by relieving her attorney. The error, however, was harmless. THE CASE AND THE FACTS In January 1993, the superior court adjudged Malcolm D., born March 6, 1991, a juvenile dependent pursuant to section 360, subdivision (c). The court had previously found Malcolm came…