Denise Z. v. Superior Court

Denise Z. v. Superior Court






Filed 1/6/12 Denise Z. v. Superior Court CA5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DENISE Z., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

F063258 (Super. Ct. Nos. JD116303-00 & JD116304-00) O P I N I O N

THE COURT^*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review, Roger T. Picquet (Retired Judge of the San Luis Obispo Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and Jon E. Stuebbe, Judges.^†
Denise Z., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Theresa Goldner, County Counsel, and Jennifer E. Feige, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Denise in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452)^[1] from the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[2] hearing as to her 10-year-old son, Oscar, and four-year-old son, Eric. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In November 2007, then six-year-old Oscar and two-month-old Eric were taken into protective custody after Denise violated parole and could not make arrangements for the children. The Kern County Department of Human Services filed a dependency petition alleging Denise’s ongoing use of methamphetamine and failure to provide support placed the children at a substantial risk of harm.
In March 2008, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for Denise. The juvenile court subsequently terminated Denise’s reunification services and, at a section 366.26 hearing in March 2009, ordered Oscar and Eric into legal guardianship.
In August 2011, Oscar and Eric’s legal guardians and their sister filed petitions pursuant to section 388 seeking to adopt the brothers.
In September 2011, the juvenile court denied both section 388 petitions and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider adoption as a permanent plan. At the time of the hearing, Denise was in custody on drug charges. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Denise asks this court to order her children returned to her or to their sister and asserts that they are unsafe and neglected in their current placement. In addition, she informs this court of the various ways in which she is attempting to rehabilitate herself. To the extent any of this information was not evidence the juvenile court considered, it is not reviewable by this court. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.) Further, because Denise does not allege the juvenile court erred, we will dismiss the writ petition as facially inadequate.
The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court’s order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a).) In this case, once the juvenile court determined that a change in the children’s permanent plan may be appropriate, it was required to set the section 366.26 hearing and Denise does not claim that the court erred in doing so. Since Denise does not claim that the juvenile court erred, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final as to this court.