N.T. v. Superior Court
Filed 2/5/09 N.T. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
N.T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | F056551 (Super. Ct. No. JD115836-00) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Marc Widelock, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21).
N.T, in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
____________________
*Before Cornell, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452) from the juvenile courts orders issued at a 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her daughter G. We will dismiss the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In September 2007, then three-year-old G. was taken into protective custody because she and petitioner were living in a cellar with no running water, food or electricity. In addition, child welfare records revealed petitioner has a history of drug use and neglect and seven other children who were not in her custody.
In November 2007, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction and ordered petitioner to participate in counseling for parenting, substance abuse and child neglect, and submit to random drug testing. The court declared the whereabouts of G.s father unknown.
Over the next six months, petitioner completed parenting counseling and participated in her other counseling programs. However, her drug testing record was abysmal. She had a significant number of positive drug test results. In addition, visitation was inconsistent. At the six-month review hearing in May 2008, the juvenile court continued petitioners reunification services.
In May 2008, petitioner completed child neglect counseling. However, her poor drug testing performance continued. She failed to drug test numerous times from May to October 2008 and when she tested, she tested positive. In July, she admitted relapsing. Later that month, she was discharged from substance abuse counseling for poor attendance. In late September, she told the social worker she did not want to participate in inpatient drug treatment.
In its 12-month review, the social services department (department) reported petitioner re-enrolled in substance abuse counseling in October 2008 and was regularly visiting G. However, the department recommended the court terminate petitioners reunification services given her failure to address her drug abuse. The department also reported G.s relative caregivers, her maternal aunt and uncle, were willing to adopt her.
In November 2008, the juvenile court conducted the 12-month review hearing. Petitioner appeared represented by counsel who objected to the departments recommendation but submitted on its report. The court terminated petitioners reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
A lower courts judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Consequently, an appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error by an adequate record. (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) With respect to writ petitions challenging the setting of a section 366.26 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.)
Petitioner does not challenge the correctness of the juvenile courts findings and orders at the setting hearing. She merely acknowledges making a mistake but asserts she deserves one more chance. She promises to complete her substance abuse counseling and test negative for drugs. Since petitioner fails to set forth a claim of error, her petition fails to comport with rule 8.452 and is therefore inadequate on its face. Consequently, we will dismiss it.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
