Jose V. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 5/28/08 Jose V. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
JOSE V., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KINGS COUNTY, Respondent, KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest. | F054796 (Super. Ct. No. 01J0164) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. George L. Orndoff, Judge.
Jose V., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Peter Mook, County Counsel and Brian Walters, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule)) from the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code, section 366.26 hearing as to his son M. 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 July 2007, the department of social services removed then nine-year-old M. from petitioners custody after petitioner kicked him in the face, causing his nose to bleed and his eyelid, forehead and bridge of his nose to bruise. Petitioner also threatened to kill M. if he disclosed the abuse. The whereabouts of M.s mother were unknown. The department placed M. with a nonrelated extended family member.
The juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction and, at the dispositional hearing in October 2007, ordered reunification services for petitioner and set the six-month review hearing for February 2008. On the day of the dispositional hearing, petitioner was taken into custody and subsequently transferred to state prison to serve a three-year-sentence.
At the six-month review hearing in February 2008, the juvenile court terminated petitioners reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
In this barebones petition, petitioner merely checked the box on the form asking this court to remand the matter for a hearing. 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.)
In this case, petitioner failed to explain how the juvenile court erred in setting the section 366.26 hearing. Without even an assertion of error, we must dismiss the petition as inadequate on its face. (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 California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
