(Super. Ct. No. 53002939)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P.J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appellant Christina C., mother of minor A. B., appeals from the orders of the juvenile court terminating dependency jurisdiction over the minor and entering an "exit order" (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.4; see In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 970, fn. 13) which continued an existing no-contact order between appellant and the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 362.4, 395; further statutory references are to this code.)
Appellant claims the juvenile court denied her due process when it dismissed the dependency and issued the exit order without giving her prior notice. We reject appellant's claim and shall affirm the juvenile court's orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2009, the minor (then 14 years old) was declared a dependent of the Alameda County Juvenile Court as a result of a petition, and later an amended petition, alleging an extensive history of appellant's physical abuse of and failure to protect the minor. The whereabouts of the minor's father, David B. (father), was unknown at that time. The juvenile court denied reunification services to appellant, ordered the minor to be placed with her maternal grandparents, and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. The court prohibited contact between appellant and the minor and the minor's half sister by deferring to an existing five-year no-contact order entered in criminal proceedings pending against appellant.
On June 17, 2009, after repeatedly expressing suicidal ideations, the minor was removed from her grandparents due to their inability to manage her emotional, psychiatric, and behavioral needs.
The minor's father was located and, on July 25, 2009, he filed a request pursuant to section 388 for reunification services and either contact with or physical custody of the minor. On August 13, 2009, the court vacated the section 366.26 hearing and set the matter for a hearing on father's section 388 request. On October 22, 2009, the juvenile court granted father's request for services and ordered that the minor was to reside with the father in Placer County.
On October 27, 2009, the juvenile court ordered that the dependency case be transferred to Placer County.
On November 20, 2009, the Placer County Juvenile Court accepted the transfer of the case and ordered that "[a]ll previous orders, . . . remain in full force and effect," including the no-contact order.
The Placer County Juvenile Court held an interim hearing on December 18, 2009. Appellant's counsel attended, but appellant declined to do so. The court continued services to and placement of the minor with the father and set the six-month review hearing for April 23, 2010.
The status review report filed April 6, 2010, summarized the recommendations of the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) as follows: "It is respectfully recommended that the father, David [B.], be granted an additional six months of family maintenance services. It is further respectfully requested that a status review hearing take place three months from the date of this hearing to review possible termination of the dependency of [the minor]. Services to the mother, [appellant], were terminated on May 11, 2009, by Alameda County Juvenile Justice court. A criminal no-contact order against [appellant] remains in effect for the protection of ...