M.G. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 9/29/10
M.G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
M.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
KERN COUNTY,
Respondent;
KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
F060426
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD122166-00, JD122167-00, JD122168-00, JD122169-00)
O P I N I O N
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Peter A. Warmerdam, Referee.
M.G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Theresa A.
Goldner, County Counsel, and Arthur H. Curran III, Deputy County Counsel, for
Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner
in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452
(rule)) from the juvenile court's order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26 hearing[1] as to her four minor children. We conclude her 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
September 2009, the Kern County Department
of Human Services (department) took petitioner's four sons, ranging in age
from two months to four years, into protective custody because of petitioner's
continuing drug use. At the time, the
children's father (father) was incarcerated on a felony probation
violation. The children were placed in
two separate foster homes.
The
juvenile court exercised its dependency
jurisdiction, ordered the children removed from parental custody and
ordered a plan of reunification for petitioner and father. The court set the six-month review hearing
for June 2010.
By June
2010, all four children were living with their maternal aunt who was amenable
to adoption. The father was
out-of-custody but only minimally participating in his court-ordered services
and petitioner continued to test positive for methamphetamine. Given the parents' noncompliance and the fact
the children constituted a sibling group, the department recommended the
juvenile court terminate reunification services at the six-month review hearing
and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In June 2010, petitioner and father
appeared represented by counsel at the six-month review hearing. Their respective attorneys informed the court
they were requesting continued services but offered no evidence. Minors' counsel informed the court the
children's caretaker preferred guardianship over adoption.
At the conclusion of the hearing,
the juvenile court adopted the department's recommendations and advised the
parents of their writ rights. This
petition ensued.[2]
DISCUSSION
A lower court's judgment or order
is presumed correct. (
557, 564.) Consequently, an â€
| Description | Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule)) from the juvenile court's order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[ as to her four minor children. Court conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate. |
| Rating |
