Andre S. v. Superior Court









Filed 9/30/11 Andre S. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ANDRE S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.

F062781 (Super. Ct. Nos. JD121412-00 & JD121413-00) OPINION

THE COURT^*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Robert J. Anspach, Judge.
Michelle R. Trujillo for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Jennifer E. Feige, 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 the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 24-month review hearing terminating his reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26^[1] hearing as to his three and two-year-old daughters, I. and U. 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 June 2009, then 16-month-old I. and 4-week-old U. were taken into protective custody by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) because petitioner and the children’s mother, Della, engaged in violence and abused drugs. In addition, petitioner suffers from mental illness.
In August 2009, the juvenile court adjudged the children dependents pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and set the dispositional hearing for September. Meanwhile, petitioner was arrested for making terrorist threats to one of the social workers. He pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to two years in prison. At dispositional hearings in September and November 2009, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for Della and petitioner respectively. The children were placed in foster care.
In March and May 2010, the juvenile court conducted six-month review hearings as to Della and petitioner respectively. The court terminated Della’s reunification services but continued petitioner’s services to the 12-month review hearing which it set for August 2010. Meanwhile, in July, he was released from prison.
In its report for the 24-month review hearing, the department recommended that the juvenile court terminate petitioner’s reunification services because, although he completed some services, he continued to test positive for drugs and he demonstrated poor parenting skills during visitation.
In June 2011, the juvenile court conducted a contested 24-month review hearing. Petitioner testified, acknowledging he failed to comply with his services plan. However, he declared his love for his children and his desire to be their father.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated petitioner’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that he completed several unspecified classes and has only seven to complete. He believes he was wronged because his children need to be with him. Other than these two assertions, he does not explain how the juvenile court erred in terminating his reunification services.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452 (rule) govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court and filing the appropriate documentation. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a).) In the absence of a claim of error, this court will not independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Consequently, since petitioner does not raise juvenile court error, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final as to this court.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---