Richard S. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 9/26/07 Richard S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
RICHARD S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. | F053338 (Super. Ct. No. JJV060841A, B, C) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Referee.
Richard S., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
____________________
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Harris, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450, 8.452) to vacate the juvenile courts order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to his daughter R. We conclude his 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 May 2006, then 11-year-old R. and her half-siblings were removed from the custody of their mother Laura[2]because Laura and her live-in boyfriend physically abused them. The juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction and provided Laura 12 months of reunification services, which it terminated at the 12-month review hearing in June 2007. At the same hearing, the court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of legal guardianship for R.
During the dependency proceedings described above, petitioner was at all times considered R.s alleged father. He was also in prison and not scheduled to be released until 2012.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not allege juvenile court error. He merely asks that his parental rights not be terminated.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452) governs the content requirements of an extraordinary writ petition and 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.) Because petitioner failed to comply with rule 8.452, his petition is inadequate for review and requires dismissal. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)
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.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Laura did not file a writ petition.
