JOYCE G. v. Superior Court

I

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ, pursuant to rule 39.IB of the California Rules of Court, to vacate the order of the respondent court directing that a selection and implementation hearing be held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider a permanent plan for petitioner’s minor child.

The petition for writ is substantively meager and the “supporting” points and authorities are even less helpful, if that is possible. Since review by extraordinary writ is not of right, but is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, this petition would ordinarily be a good candidate for summary denial. (See Rayna R. v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1398 , 1407 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 259 ].) However, subdivision (Z) of section 366.26 and rule 39.IB have been judicially construed to require an alternative writ or order to show cause to issue and a decision by written opinion to be rendered in every such proceeding. (In re Shaundra L. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 303, 314-316 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 299 ]; see also James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1018 [ 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 ].) Thus, a threshold question is presented whether the writ review…