In Re Monique S.

Gary S. Plavnick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

OPINION

KREMER, P.J.

Dorina S. appeals after the court terminated parental rights to her dependent daughter, Monique S., and referred Monique for adoptive placement under Welfare and Institutions Code [1] section 366.26. Dorina contends the court lacked jurisdiction to set the selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26) at the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21), rather than after a twelve-month hearing. The department of social services (Department) responds the appeal should be dismissed because the referral order may be reviewed only by petition for a writ. Alternatively the Department argues the order was proper and supported by substantial evidence. Counsel for the minor on appeal agrees with Dorina that the court lacked jurisdiction to set the section 366.26 hearing after six months, but concurs with the Department that the order is not now reviewable and asks the termination of parental rights be affirmed.

In light of our Supreme Court's recent decision in In re Matthew C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 386 [ 24 Cal. Rptr.2d 765 , 862 P.2d 765 ], Dorina's challenge to the order setting the section 366.26…