Sonoma County Department of Social Services v. Linda M.

*400 Opinion

J.—Mother appeals an order directing the county counsel to file a petition for termination of parental rights (Civ. Code., § 232) which was issued after a permanency planning hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.25.

Facts and Procedural History

Sarah F., who was bom October 31, 1983, and David F., who was bom October 24, 1982, are the children of Linda M. Both children were taken into custody on January 8, 1984, and two days later a petition was filed seeking to have them declared dependent children on grounds that they were destitute and lacking the necessities of life and that their half-brother, Timmy M., had been tied to his bed with an electrical cord. (§ 300, subds. (b), (d).) At a jurisdictional hearing held January 26, 1984, the children were declared dependents of the court.

A six-month review hearing was held as to the status of the children on July 24, 1984. (§ 366.) A hearing on permanency planning for the children was continued first in January and again in February 1985. At the hearing, which had been put over to April 3, 1985, the department of social services recommended a six-month delay to permit additional time…

I respectfully dissent.

I agree that the Welfare and Institutions Code sections discussed by the majority govern the appealability question in this case. I also agree that the question is not who may appeal but whether the authorization is appealable. But I must dissent from the majority opinion for two reasons.

First, section 366.25, 1 as amended in 1984, does not allow the juvenile court to order the institution of a Civil Code section 232 proceeding. It now can only authorize the appropriate agency to institute such a proceeding, and this authorization does not amount to an appealable order. Second, In re Debra M. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1032 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 739 ], arecent decision in which the Second Appellate District followed In re Candy S. (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 329 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 43 ], in my judgment presents the more persuasive policy analysis in cases like this one.

*406 In holding that a “reference order” from a section 366.25 permanency planning hearing is appealable, the majority relies on In re Joshua S. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 147 [ 230 Cal.Rptr. 437 ], and In re Lorenzo T. (1987), 190 Cal.App.3d 888 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 680 ]. Joshua S. involved a joint review and…