Dеfendant and appellant M.O. (mother) has unresolved mental health issues that led to the court finding jurisdiction over her 12-year-old daughter, A.O., under Welfare and Institutions Codе section 300, subdivision (b)
Mother appeals the orders from the six- and 12-month review hearings and, сiting the court’s failure to advise her of her right to appeal after the disposition hearing, she also appeals the jurisdictional findings and dispositional оrder. We affirm jurisdiction and disposition but reverse the court’s findings at the six- and 12-month review hearings that DPSS had provided reasonable reunification services.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND*
II
ANALYSIS
1. The Merits of Jurisdiction and Disposition Should Be Addressed
Mother argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional findings and its dispositional order remоving A.O. from her care. DPSS asserts that mother forfeited these arguments by failing to file a timely notice of appeal after the court issued the dispositional оrder. Mother concedes her appeal is untimely but asks that we reach the merits of her challenges to those rulings because the trial court violated rule 5.590(a) of the California Rules of Court (rule 5.590(a)) by failing to inform her of her right to appeal at the conclusion of the disposition hearing. We are not aware of any cases addressing the effect of the court’s failure to advise a party of the right to appeal under rule 5.590(a). However, there are cases that address rule
One of the most fundamental rules of appellate review is that the timе for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. “[Ojnce the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to entertain the аppeal.” (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997)
Rule 5.590(a) states that “after making its disposition order,” the court “must advise, orally or in writing, the child, if of sufficient age, and, if present, the parent or guardian of . . . [¶] . . . [t]he right of the child, parent, and guardian to appeal from the court order .... (Italics added.) This mandate applies any time a court finds that dependency jurisdiction under section 300, 601, or 602 is proper. (Rule 5.590(a).) Similarly, rule 5.590(b) stаtes that when a court orders a section 366.26 hearing, it “must advise” all parties of the requirements necessary to ensure extraordinary writ review of the order setting the hearing.
In re Cathina W. (1998)
We direct mother’s attention to the rule that the notice of appeal must specify each particular order being appealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) Nowhere in either of mother’s noticеs did she specify that she was appealing jurisdictional and dispositional rulings. In the typical case, this defect would be fatal to her appeal of thоse rulings, because the rule is a jurisdictional one. (See, e.g., Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005)
DPSS urges us to deny review on the ground that the court was not required to give the rule 5.590(a) appeal advisement because mother had waived her right to appeal the jurisdictional and dispositional rulings. DPSS would have us find that this waiver occurred at the disposition hearing when mother’s counsel stated that mother was “submitting as to reunification services.” While a parent’s submission “on the recommendation” of the social services agency can constitute waiver of any challenges to the court’s order on appeal, mother did no such thing here.
Mother submitted solely on the issue of reunification services, she did not submit to DPSS’s recommendation that the court assert jurisdiction over A.O. or remove A.O. from her care. The cases DPSS cites do not support a finding of waiver here because in those cases the parent submitted on the entirety of the agency’s recommendation and made no effort to object or offer contradictory evidеnce to the court. (In re Richard K. (1994)
Ill
DISPOSITION
The court’s orders issued at the six- and 12-month review hearings are reversed only with regard to the findings that DPSS provided mother reasonable reunification services, and those findings are vacated. The case is remanded to the court to enter a new order finding that, as of the six- and 12-month review hearings, DPSS failеd to provide mother with reasonable reunification services. On remand, the court shall order DPSS to provide mother with reasonable reunification serviсes that are consistent with her case plan. At a minimum, the court shall order DPSS to provide services designed to give mother an opportunity to commenсe a psychotropic medication program, such as medication evaluation referrals and therapy, as necessary. These services shall be provided for a length of time that is reasonable in light of the circumstances existing when the court enters the new order and that will allow mother a meaningful оpportunity to reunify with A.O. (See In re Taylor J. (2014)
On November 12, 2015, and November 13, 2015, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.
Notes
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
'See footnote, ante, page 145.
See footnote, ante, page 145.