M.P. v. Super. Ct.

Filed 2/4/10 M.P. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT^*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane Cardoza, Judge.

M.P., 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 setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[1]hearing as to his daughter E. We conclude his 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 December 2008, newborn E. was detained by the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) after her mother tested positive for methamphetamine. At the time, petitioner, then E.s alleged father, was on probation for a drug-related conviction.

In February 2009, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and declared petitioner E.s presumed father. The court ordered E. removed from parental custody, ordered reunification services for both parents and set the six-month review hearing for August 2009.

Meanwhile, in May 2009, the juvenile court placed E. with mother under family maintenance services. However, in August 2009, mother tested positive for methamphetamine, necessitating E.s removal pursuant to a supplemental petition ( 387). The department placed E. with her maternal grandparents.

In September 2009, at a combined jurisdictional hearing on the supplemental petition and six-month review of services as to petitioner, the juvenile court terminated petitioners reunification services. The court also continued the jurisdictional hearing on the supplemental petition to later in the month. Petitioner did not appeal from the courts order denying him reunification services.

In November 2009, at a combined jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on the supplemental petition, the juvenile court sustained the petition and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan for E. 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).)

Here, the petition consists of the standard Judicial Council of California form for filing an extraordinary writ petition (JV-825). The petition is blank except for the basic information required (i.e., name, address and juvenile court case number). In that an extraordinary writ petition requires at least some allegation of juvenile court error in order for us to review the matter, the instant petition is completely inadequate for review. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially deficient.

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 Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.