William L. v. Superior Court
Filed 7/31/06 William L. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| WILLIAM L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. |
F050386
(Super. Ct. No. 96814-3)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Ralph Nunez, Judge.
William L., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner is the alleged father of a son, D., born in December 2005. Petitioner in pro. per. seeks extraordinary writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38-38.1 (rule)) from the juvenile court's order issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying D.'s mother, Amy, reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 38.1(a) and (b) and will dismiss the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Newborn D. was removed from the custody of petitioner's girlfriend Amy at the hospital because of Amy's complicity in the death of her two-month-old daughter in February 1998. Petitioner was arrested within a few days of D.'s birth for violating probation and remained incarcerated throughout these proceedings.
The juvenile court detained D. pursuant to a dependency petition, adjudging him a dependent of the court and, at a contested dispositional hearing on May 9, 2006, denied Amy reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(4) and (b)(11). Since petitioner had not elevated his paternity status above that of alleged father, the court also denied him reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (a). This petition ensued.[2]
DISCUSSION
Real party in interest argues the petition is facially inadequate and should be dismissed. We agree. Rule 38.1(a) and (b) sets forth the content requirements of an extraordinary writ petition taken from dependency proceedings. Rule 38.1(b) specifically requires that the petition include points and authorities, including a summary of the facts as well as points of alleged error supported by citation to the appellate record and to legal authority. However, failure to strictly comply with the content requirements of the rule is not fatal to a petitioner as this court will liberally construe a petition in favor of its sufficiency. (Rule 38.1(a)(2).)
In this case, however, even the broadest reading and most liberal construction of the petition would not permit any meaningful review of the underlying matter. In the space provided on the form petition, petitioner simply expresses his desire â€
