Leticia M. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 1/19/10 Leticia M. v. Super. Ct. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
LETICIA M. Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | B220384 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK73609) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Petition denied.
No appearance for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Frank J. DaVanzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
_________________________
Petitioner Leticia M. (mother) seeks review of orders of the juvenile court terminating family reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) for February 18, 2010, as to three of mothers children, Jacob, Joseph and David. We summarily deny her petition for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
1. Juvenile court proceedings.
Mothers four children, Edward, Jacob, Joseph and David, were declared dependent on September 11, 2008. The sustained petition alleged mother had a history of substance abuse and had a recent positive toxicological screen for amphetamine. The juvenile court ordered mother to participate in individual counseling and parent education and to attend drug rehabilitation with random testing. Edward was placed in foster care at a group home; Jacob and Joseph were placed with paternal great aunt and uncle; David was placed with a foster family. Mother failed to participate in drug rehabilitation and did not visit any of the children consistently.
After a contested hearing, the juvenile court terminated mothers family reunification services and set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 as to Jacob, Joseph and David. The juvenile court found Edward was best served by long-term foster care.
2. Mothers writ petition.
Mother filed a writ petition on the form approved by the Judicial Council. It lists the names of her children and asks that the underlying order be vacated but does not indicate the grounds on which mother seeks to challenge the order. Attached to the petition is a letter from mothers parent support liaison at Edwards group home who indicates mother inconsistently has attended group parenting and anger management meetings.
We appointed counsel to represent mother. Counsel advised us by letter she is unable to file a writ petition. (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570.) Counsel requested mother be given an opportunity to file a petition. We granted mother an opportunity to file a supplemental petition but she filed nothing further. We issued an order to show cause and the Department of Children and Family Services filed a return.
Rule 8.452 governs writ petitions seeking review of orders setting hearings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Rule 8.452(a)(2) and (b) require that the petition be accompanied by a memorandum which: (1) provides a summary of significant facts (limited to matters in the record); (2) states each point under a separate heading, supported by argument and citation to authority; and (3) supports any reference to a matter in the record with a citation to the record, with an explanation of the significance of that portion of the record and a notation of any disputed aspects of the record.
Mothers petition fails to comply with any of these requirements. The only evidence offered by mother in support of the petition related to Edward. However, the juvenile court set a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 only as to Jacob, Joseph and David. Thus, the petition fails to comply in any respect with Rule 8.452. (Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 583.)
The petition must be liberally construed. (Rule 8.452(a)(2).) However, the rule requiring liberal construction of the petition cannot cure a complete failure to comply with rule 8.452. The failure to file a meaningful writ petition constitutes exceptional circumstances excusing this court from further review and permitting summary denial of mothers petition, which otherwise is required by rule 8.452(i)(1). (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512 [failure to tender any specific issues constitutes exceptional circumstances excusing review on the merits].)
DISPOSITION
The petition is summarily denied. Our decision is final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(3).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KLEIN, P. J.
We concur:
CROSKEY, J.
ALDRICH, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
