In Re Dino E.
Opinion
Opinion
George W. Kennedy, District Attorney, and Robert J. Masterson, Deputy District Attorney, for Minor.
OPINION
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
Following a combined 12- and 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court issued an order authorizing a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, thereby terminating reunification services to the minor's father, Wendell E. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a). [1] ) The father appeals, contending that the order was an abuse of discretion in light of the court's finding that reasonable reunification services had not been provided to him.
(1a) A referral order pursuant to section 366.22 is made nonappealable by section 366.26, subdivision (k), but may be reviewed by extraordinary writ. (§ 366.26, subd. (k); In re Amber U. (1992) 3 Cal. App.4th 871, 880 [ 4 Cal. Rptr.2d 726 ].) Because of the circumstances of this case we will treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate.
We conclude that the peremptory writ of mandate must issue and we direct that the court hold further proceedings in order to determine whether to proceed with the section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing, in light of…