Damien R. v. Superior Court
Filed 11/2/07 Damien R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
DAMIEN R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | F053503 (Super. Ct. No. JD 113208) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Gerald Walbaum, Judge Pro Tem.
Damien R., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Thurston, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
____________________
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Harris, J., and Cornell, J.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450/8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying him reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to his son A. We conclude his petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In January 2007, then 21-month-old A. was removed from petitioners physical custody at the emergency room after the examining physician observed multiple injuries suggestive of child abuse. A.s penis was red and swollen as if strangulated by a ligature. He had bruises, abrasions and other injuries over most of his body. Portions of his scalp were missing hair as if it had been torn out. His nipples were bruised as if they had been pinched. He had a bite mark on his neck, abrasions on his mouth, nose and eyes and lash marks on his back, consistent with being whipped by a cord. He also had a circular injury on the palm of his right hand, indicative of a burn. None of petitioners varied explanations for the injuries were consistent with the nature of the injuries. In addition, petitioner admitted using methamphetamine earlier in the day.
Petitioner was arrested for child endangerment and torture and the social services department (department) filed a dependency petition alleging A. came within the juvenile courts jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), (e) (severe physical abuse) and (i) (cruelty). At the time of A.s removal, his mother, Mary, was in prison.
At the jurisdictional hearing in May 2007, petitioner and Mary waived their trial rights and submitted the matter on the information contained in the departments social studies. The juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true and adjudged A. a dependent under subdivisions (a), (b), (e) and (i) of section 300.
In July 2007, the juvenile court conducted the dispositional hearing on the departments recommendation the court deny petitioner reunification services based on its finding he caused A. severe physical harm ( 361.5, subd. (b)(5), (6)). The department also recommended the court deny Mary services for failing to reunify and losing her parental rights to A.s two older half-siblings ( 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11)).
Petitioners attorney objected to the departments recommendation to deny petitioner reunification services but offered no evidence on his behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adopted the departments recommendations and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
By this petition, petitioner seeks continuation of services initiated at the beginning of the dependency proceedings. He explains his difficulty arranging drug treatment and drug testing. He also informs this court he has relocated and is in the process of finding a job and seeking counseling. What petitioner does not do, however, is explain how the juvenile court erred in denying him reunification services. Consequently, the petition fails to comport with the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition as set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452) and precludes any meaningful appellate review.
Rule 8.452 specifies, inter alia, that the writ petition must include a summary of the significant facts and identify contested legal points with citation to legal authority and argument. (Rule 8.452(b).) At a minimum, the writ petition must adequately inform the court of the issues presented, point out the factual support for them in the record, and offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues. (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.) Because petitioner failed to comply with rule 8.452, his petition is inadequate for review and requires dismissal. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
