Donald E. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 9/12/07 Donald E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DONALD E., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | F053163; F053166 (Super. Ct. Nos. JD106316-00; JD106317-00 O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Robert J. Anspach, Judge.
Donald E., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]hearing as to his daughter H. and son S. We will dismiss the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Dependency proceedings were initiated in February 2005 after petitioner, while intoxicated, attempted sexual intercourse with a young woman living in the family home. Petitioner was arrested for attempted rape and the children, then eight-year-old H. and six-year-old S., were removed from his custody by the social services department (department) and placed in foster care. The childrens mother, Rhonda,[2]had left the family and was living in another state.
The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction and, in April, ordered reunification services for petitioner and Rhonda, both of whom have significant histories of drug and alcohol abuse. Petitioners plan of reunification required him to complete counseling for alcohol abuse and parenting, abstain from alcohol use, submit to random drug testing and participate in biweekly supervised visitation.
Over the course of the proceedings, petitioner would receive 18 months of combined family reunification and family maintenance services and, initially, it appeared he would successfully reunify with his children. Within the first several months, he completed a parenting course, enrolled in substance abuse counseling and began attending Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Petitioner also submitted to random urinalysis and, though he tested negative for alcohol, he tested positive for marijuana. However, he produced a 12-month prescription for medicinal marijuana issued in early November 2004 for chronic pain. Petitioner vowed to discontinue marijuana use and not to renew his prescription once it expired.
In light of petitioners progress, the juvenile court ordered the children returned to his custody under family maintenance, which required him to abstain from alcohol and to enroll in substance abuse counseling if he tested positive for nonprescribed controlled substances. However, family maintenance proved ineffective. In January 2006, the department removed the children from petitioners custody after he repeatedly tested positive for marijuana. At a hearing on the matter, the juvenile court continued reunification services.
Over the next several months, however, any hopes of reunification faded quickly. The juvenile court terminated Rhondas reunification services for noncompliance. In addition, petitioner was arrested for grand theft auto and possession of stolen property. He also continued to test positive for marijuana. At the 18-month review hearing in August 2006, the juvenile court terminated petitioners reunification services and ordered the children into long-term foster care.
Despite the prospect of permanently losing custody of his children, petitioners substance abuse continued unabated. Not long after the review hearing, he was arrested for driving under the influence and he tested positive for methamphetamine. Meanwhile, the children were doing well in their foster home and wanted to remain there permanently. Consequently, in May 2007, minors counsel filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of legal guardianship.
In June 2007, the juvenile court conducted an uncontested hearing on the section 388 petition. Petitioner did not personally appear but was represented by counsel, who objected only to any change in visitation. The juvenile court granted the section 388 petition and set the section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims the department provided false information and trial counsel was incompetent. However, he fails to provide any factual support for his claims or cite legal authority as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452), which governs the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition.
Rule 8.452 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 the rule, 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 resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J. and Kane, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Rhonda did not file a writ petition.
