Roberto C. v. Superior Court
Filed 1/22/13 Roberto C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ROBERTO C.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY,
Respondent;
FRESNO
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
F065837
(Super. Ct. Nos. 11CEJ300219-1
& 11CEJ300219-2)
O P I N I
O N
THE COURT
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for
Roberto
C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No
appearance for Respondent.
Kevin
Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real
Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Roberto C., in propria
persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the
juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26
hearing
title="">[1] as to his four-year-old daughter and
two-year-old son.
conclude his petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition as
inadequate.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
County Department of Social Services (department) removed Roberto’s then
three-year-old daughter and 14-month-old son from the custody of the mother
because of her drug use and child neglect.
At the time, Roberto was incarcerated.
In March 2012,
following a contested
exercised its dependency jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for
the children’s mother. The juvenile
court denied Roberto reunification services and set the six-month review
hearing for August 2012. Roberto did not
appeal from the juvenile court’s denial of services order.
The mother was not
compliant with her services plan and in early April 2012, she was arrested and
incarcerated. Meanwhile, the children
were doing well in the care of their maternal grandfather and step grandmother. They had monthly contact with their paternal
relatives which the children enjoyed.
In its report for the
six-month review hearing, the department recommended that the juvenile court
terminate the mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing
to implement a permanent plan for the children.
The mother’s attorney challenged the department’s recommendation and the
juvenile court conducted a contested hearing in September 2012.
Roberto appeared at
the contested hearing in custody and was represented by counsel who entered a
general objection to the setting of the section 366.26 hearing and requested
visitation. The juvenile court
terminated the mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26
hearing. The juvenile court also ordered
supervised telephone contact between Roberto and the children, written contact,
and supervised third party visitation.
This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Roberto asks that his
children be placed with his relatives and asks this court to consider efforts
he made to better himself. To that end,
he attached several documents to support this last claim.
As a preliminary
matter, we will not review the documentation Roberto included with his petition
because it was not considered by the juvenile court. (In re
Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.)
Further, we will not review the writ petition because Roberto does not
claim the juvenile court erred in setting the section 366.26 hearing.
Court, rules 8.450-8.452 govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ
proceedings in this court. The purpose
of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court’s order
setting the section 366.26 hearing.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).)
In the absence of a claim of error, this court will not independently
review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re
Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Roberto’s request for
relative placement and consideration of his efforts have no bearing on the
juvenile court’s setting of the section 366.26 hearing and therefore do not
raise juvenile court error. Thus, we
cannot review the petition. Further,
Roberto’s requests are matters that must be brought in the first instance
before the juvenile court not in the appellate court.
Based on the
foregoing, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate
review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary
writ is dismissed. This opinion is final
as to this court.
Franson, J.
and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
