In re S.W. CA1/4

Filed 7/10/24 In re S.W. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR In re S.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY A168222 SERVICES BUREAU,

(Contra Costa County Super. Petitioner and Respondent, Ct. No. J21-00479) v. A.W. and S.V.,

Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 A.W. (Mother) and S.V. (Father) appeal from an order terminating their parental rights as to S.W. (Child) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 Generally, Mother and Father challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order. But because their specific claims are either unreviewable or forfeited, we affirm.

Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), a “finding under subdivision (b) . . . of [s]ection 361.5 that reunification services shall not be offered . . . shall constitute a sufficient basis for termination of parental rights” unless certain enumerated exceptions apply. Here, in the same hearing in which the section 366.26 hearing was ordered, the juvenile court found that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11), applied and accordingly, ordered that reunification services not be offered. Since “[a]ll orders issued at a hearing in which a section 366.26 hearing is ordered . . . must be reviewed by extraordinary writ” (In re Tabitha W. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 811, 817), the section 361.5, subdivision (b), “finding . . . that reunification services shall not be offered” and the other findings anticipating the section 366.26 hearing in this case are not reviewable here.3 (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)

Consequently, the only potentially remaining and reviewable question is whether any exception enumerated in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), applies and thus renders the juvenile court’s previous section 361.5, subdivision (b), findings an insufficient basis for terminating parental rights. However, that issue is not raised in Mother and Father’s respective opening briefs, whose only argument concerns the juvenile court’s “finding of danger to” Child. As we observed when deciding Mother’s writ petition, that finding was implicitly made by the juvenile court when it bypassed reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b), and moreover, the same finding was supported by substantial evidence. (A.W. v. Superior Court, supra, A166806, at pp. 23–24.) Although Mother does argue in her reply brief for the application of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception enumerated in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), that contention is forfeited because “ ‘points raised for the first time in a reply brief are not considered by the court.’ ” (Herrera v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538, 548.)

In sum, because Mother and Father have forfeited the only reviewable issue they raise, they have failed to adduce any ground for reversal.4

DISPOSITION

We affirm the order terminating parental rights.

HITE, J. * We concur:

STREETER, Acting P. J.

GOLDMAN, J.

In re S.W. (A168222)

* Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.