M.G. v. Super. Ct.

Filed 1/28/09 M.G. v. Super. Ct. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

M.G. (mother), appearing in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 with regard to her daughter D.G. We summarily deny the petition because mother has failed to comply with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court (rule 8.452).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

D.G. was born in February 2008 and is the seventh child of mother. She was taken into custody in April 2008 when she was found in filthy, unsanitary and dangerous conditions in a motel room where she was staying with her mother. On May 8, 2008, Santa Barbara CountyChild Welfare Services (CWS) filed a section 300 dependency petition alleging D.G. had suffered or was substantially at risk of suffering serious physical harm by his mother, mother had failed to protect or provide care for the child, and mother's parental rights as to four of D.G.'s siblings or half-siblings had been terminated due to abuse or neglect. ( 300, subds. (b), (g) & (j).) The petition alleged that mother had been diagnosed with serious mental disorders in 2002 and 2006, had a substantial history of criminal and violent behavior, and lived a transient and unstable lifestyle. The court issued a detention order on May 9, 2008.

On June 9, 2008, CWS filed its jurisdiction and disposition report recommending that reunification services be denied pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11). The report showed that mother's parental rights regarding siblings of D.G. were terminated in September 2002 (two siblings), October 2004 (one sibling), and April 2006 (one sibling). The report also covered mother's criminal history, psychiatric problems, and substance abuse problems.

In September 2008, Muriel Yanez, PsyD., filed a report stating that mother had a severe mental illness and remained extremely impaired by that illness. Dr. Yanez opined that mother's mental illness was exacerbated by her substance abuse problem, and that mother was not competent to parent her children.

At the October 2, 2009, jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court denied mother reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11), and scheduled a section 366.26 permanency plan hearing for January 12, 2009.

On October 24, 2008, mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ challenging the court's October 2, 2008, order.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to rule 8.452(a)(1)(D), a petition for an extraordinary writ to vacate an order of the juvenile court setting a section 366.26 hearing must include "[a] summary of the grounds of the petition." Rule 8.452(b) provides that the petition must be accompanied by a memorandum providing "a summary of the significant facts" with supporting citations to the record. "The memorandum must state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point and support each point by argument and citation of authority." (Rule 8.452(b)(2).) The memorandum "must, at a minimum, 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.)

Here, mother did not file a memorandum of points and authorities or otherwise "offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues." (Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 583.) Moreover, the petition does not address, even in a cursory fashion, the orders made by the juvenile court or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those orders. The trial court denied reunification services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11) based on the termination of reunification services and of mother's parental rights regarding four siblings of D.G. Mother's petition ignores the court's findings and, instead, makes various assertions regarding the psychological report by Dr. Yanez. Such assertions might be relevant to a denial of reunification services based on a parent's "mental disability" as set forth in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2), but are not relevant to the actual orders made by the court pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (11).

While the petition must be liberally construed (rule 8.452(a)(2)), liberal construction cannot cure mother's failure to comply with the straightforward procedural requirements of rule 8.452. This failure constitutes "exceptional circumstances" justifying summary denial of the petition, as contemplated by rule 8.452(i)(1). (See Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157-158; Cresse S. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 947, 956; Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512.)

The petition for extraordinary writ is summarily denied. In light of the need to promptly proceed with the section 366.26 hearing, our decision is immediately final as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

COFFEE, J.

James E. Herman, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

M.G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, Toni Lorien and Joel F. Block, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.