S.B. v. Superior Court
Filed 1/21/10 S.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
S.B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | F058749 (Super. Ct. Nos. 08CEJ300182-1 & 08CEJ300182-2) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
S.B., 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-
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from respondent courts order issued at a combined contested six and 12-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing as to her son S. and daughter T. We conclude her 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 July 2008, the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) took then 22-month-old S. and seven-month-old T. into protective custody after petitioner left them with an unsuitable caregiver in an unsanitary living environment. !(CT 1-5)! The juvenile court ordered the children detained and ordered petitioner and the childrens father to be assessed for substance abuse treatment and to submit to random drug testing. !(CT 18-19)! The children were placed together in foster care. !(CT 103)!
In September 2008, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court adjudged both children dependents pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The court set the dispositional hearing for October 2008. !(CT 94-95)!
The dispositional hearing was continued multiple times to comply with the notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and was conducted as a contested hearing in May 2009. !(CT 196, 253, 255-256, 314, 321, 329)! At that hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from petitioners custody, denied father reunification services and ordered petitioner to participate in parenting classes and substance abuse treatment, complete a domestic violence evaluation and participate in any recommended treatment and submit to random drug testing. The court set a combined six and 12-month review hearing for September 2009. !(CT 329-330)!
The combined hearing was continued and conducted in October 2009. !(CT 453, 461, 464, 468)! In its report for the hearing, the department recommended the court terminate petitioners reunification services for failure to make sufficient progress in her court-ordered services. !(CT 473, 479)!
Petitioner testified as to the services she had completed and those she was participating in. !(RT 104-107)! At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated petitioners reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. !(RT 115-117)! This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Rule 8.452 requires that a dependency writ petition include a memorandum setting forth a summary of the significant facts and points of contention supported by argument and citation to the appellate record and authority. (Rule 8.452(b).) In this case, petitioner does not assert a claim of juvenile court error. Rather, she informs this court of the services she completed, essentially reiterating her testimony at the setting hearing. Additionally, she states that she loves her children and does not want them to be adopted.
While we liberally construe writ petitions in favor of their sufficiency, a bare assertion without a claim of error is insufficient for our review. Real party in interest argues the petition should be dismissed as facially inadequate under rule 8.452. We concur that dismissal is appropriate in this case.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
