Filed 8/6/26 N.S. v. Superior Court CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
N.S.,
D088004
Petitioner,
v.
(Imperial County Super. Ct. No.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JJP001383)
IMPERIAL COUNTY,
Respondent;
IMPERIAL COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
PROCEEDINGS for extraordinary relief after reference to a Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Michael Domenzain, Judge.
Petition denied; request for stay denied.
Wendy Miller for Petitioner.
Geoffrey P. Holbrook, County Counsel, Mistelle Abdelmagied, Assistant
County Counsel, and Kelly Ranasinghe, Counsel, for Real Party in Interest
Imperial County Department of Social Services.
A.A.’s mother, N.S., filed a petition for extraordinary writ under
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452,1 seeking review of a juvenile court
order terminating reunification services after 24 months and setting a
hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.2 Mother
contends she successfully completed all required programs and demonstrated
compliance with the requirements imposed by Imperial County Department
of Social Services (Department). We summarily deny the petition because it
does not comply with rule 8.452, and we deny the request for a stay of the
proceedings.
DISCUSSION
Rule 8.452(a)(1)(3) requires a petition to be accompanied by a
memorandum. The memorandum “must provide a summary of the
significant facts,” state each point under a separate heading that summarizes
the point, support points with argument and citation to authority, and
support references to matters in the record with record citations. (Rule
8.452(b)(1)-(3).) Mother’s petition is not accompanied by a memorandum.
Her summary of the significant facts, contained in the petition, consists of
two sentences: “As reported in the March 4, 2026 report, Mother successfully
completed all required programs and demonstrated compliance with the
department’s requirements, there was zero evidence presented of any
behavior to place the minor at risk, merely that Mother hadn’t ‘taken
accountability.’ . . . As a result, services were terminated and a § 366.26
1 Rule references are the California Rules of Court.
2 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
hearing was set for August 12, 2026.” The summary includes a single record
citation.
“When a rule 8.452 petition is filed, the attorney is obligated to submit
an adequate petition. (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570,
583.) The petition must summarize the factual basis for the petition,
reference specific portions of the record, and attach a memorandum that
offers argument and citation to authority. (Ibid; rule 8.452(b).) This petition
does none of this.
The petition contains no summary of significant facts. It comments
that Mother completed the required programs. But this ignores significant
facts. For example, the petition does not explain that A.A. was removed from
Mother’s custody in part because there was an active restraining order
against the presumed father, and Mother failed to protect A.A. from ongoing
domestic violence. Nor does it acknowledge that after 18 months of services,
the Department described Mother’s behavior as unpredictable because of
Mother’s underage alcohol use and her minimization of its effects. The
petition also does not disclose that Mother took A.A. to unapproved locations,
including Mexico, during visits, raising concerns she might abscond with the
child.
The record citation directs us to a March 4, 2026 status review report.
That report acknowledges Mother was “progressing in her court ordered
services and visiting [A.A.] consistently,” but it also states there was
“minimal evidence” to prove Mother would be able to protect A.A. from
domestic violence because she “continue[d] to engage in behaviors that pose
safety concerns,” and she provided inconsistent information about her contact
with the presumed father despite an active restraining order. The citation
provides support for Mother’s claim only in the barest sense that the fact
3
appears on the cited page of the record. It is an incomplete representation of
what occurred and why the court terminated services.
The petition also fails to make any legal argument explaining why the
court erred by finding Mother’s behavior placed A.A. at risk. It focused on
the Department’s statement that Mother did not take accountability, but it
did not challenge the Department’s explanation that Mother’s risky behavior
included “involving herself with the child’s father,” showing she was not
integrating the skills and knowledge gained from participation in services
into her daily life. No attached memorandum supplies us with analysis or
otherwise substantively addresses a material issue.
Because the petition is substantively deficient, we deny it. (Anthony D.
v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157 [summary denial of writ
petition failing to substantively address specific legal issues to be
challenged]; Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1506
[writ petition that fails to tender an arguable issue subject to summary
denial “ ‘on the merits’ ”].)
4
DISPOSITION
The petition is denied. The request for stay is denied.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, J.
KELETY, J.
5