Rudy
M. v. Super. Ct.
Filed
7/17/14 Rudy M. v.
Super. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
RUDY M.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF KERN
COUNTY,
Respondent;
KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
F069521
(Super.
Ct. No. JD131468-00)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court of Kern
County. Louie L. Vega, Judge.
Rudy M., in pro. per., for
Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No
appearance for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Rudy M. (father)
of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the juvenile court’s May 27, 2014 order terminating
his reunification services and setting a Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.26
Isabella. Father alleges the juvenile
court’s order was erroneous due to his incarceration. His petition fails to comport with the
procedural requirements of California Rules
of Court, rule 8.452(b), in that it does not include a memorandum: (1) summarizing the significant facts
contained in the record; and (2) supporting his argument by citation to legal
authority and the record. Accordingly, we will dismiss father’s
petition as inadequate.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
When Isabella was approximately five
months old, each of her parents was arrested.
The mother was arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine
and father, who was also using methamphetamine, was arrested for a parole
violation. As a result, Isabella was
placed in protective custody and the Kern
County Department of Human Services (department) initiated these
The juvenile court subsequently exercised
its dependency jurisdiction over Isabella because of the substantial risk that
she would suffer serious physical harm by each parent’s inability to provide
regular care due to each parent’s substance abuse. In November 2013, the juvenile court ordered
Isabella removed from parental custody and ordered six months of reunification
services for only father. Father’s reunification
services included counseling
for parenting and substance abuse, random drug testing, and visitation.
Father was in and out of custody during these proceedings. He was both incarcerated and released during mid-October
2013. He was again arrested on October
29, 2013, for
carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. He
explained to a social worker in mid-November 2013, that he was in pretrial
custody and could not be placed in minimum security “because of his
circumstances.†He was released sometime
after, but arrested again on December 7, 2013, on a grand theft auto charge. He has remained incarcerated since then. His expected release date is November
4, 2014. Because he was once again in pretrial custody
and allegedly in protective custody, father told social workers he could not
participate in court-ordered reunification services.
As of a six-month status review hearing in May 2014, father had not
completed any reunification services and had made no progress in addressing the
problems that led to Isabella’s removal. Father also did not visit with Isabella when
he was not incarcerated and, because the child constantly cried during visits
at the jail, father waived his right to visit with Isabella while he was
incarcerated. There was also no
substantial probability that Isabella could be returned to father within
another six months.
At the May 2014 hearing, father’s counsel asked the court to give father
additional time to reunify with Isabella due to his inability to participate in
reunification services because of his custodial status at the jail. The juvenile court denied the request for
additional time to reunify and terminated reunification services as to father pursuant
to section 366.21, subdivision (e).
time she was initially removed from parental physical custody; there was clear
and convincing evidence that father had failed to participate regularly and
make substantial progress in the court-ordered treatment program; and there was
also no substantial probability that the child might be returned to father
within an additional six months.
The court consequently set a permanency planning hearing (§ 366.26)
for September 24, 2014, to select and implement a permanent plan for Isabella.
DISCUSSION
Inadequate Petition
The
purpose of writ proceedings such as this is to facilitate review of a juvenile
court’s order setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a
permanent plan for a dependent child.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).)
A court’s decision is presumed correct.
(Denham v. Superior Court
(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to a
petitioner to raise specific issues and substantively address them. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) This court will not
independently review the record for possible error. (In re
Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Father contends the juvenile court
should not have made its May 27, 2014 orders because of his incarceration. However, he fails to explain how the juvenile
court’s decision was legally erroneous.
Also, he implies it is not his fault that he could not participate in
services during his incarceration and yet he ignores the record. There was no evidence that father had taken
steps to reunify with Isabella when he was not incarcerated. Also, he was aware, prior to the November
2013 order granting him reunification services, that he could not participate
in services if he was incarcerated. Yet,
even after he was released in November 2013, he was arrested for a new offense
in December 2013. Father further
overlooks the evidence that there was no substantial probability that he could
reunify with Isabella within another additional six months because he would not
be released and available to even participate in services until November 2014.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ
is dismissed. This opinion is
immediately final as to this court.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Poochigian, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All
statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise
indicated.
