Gary R. v. Superior Court
Filed 6/25/12 Gary R. v. Superior Court CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
GARY R.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF VENTURA COUNTY,
Respondent;
VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Real Party in
Interest.
2d Civil No.
B239800
(Super. Ct.
Nos. J067944, J067945, J067946,
J067947)
(Ventura
County)
Gary R. (Father), in propria persona, seeks
an extraordinary writ and challenges
an order of the juvenile court terminating family reunification services and
setting a permanent plan hearing regarding his four minor children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd.
(c).)
extraordinary writ.
Elizabeth V. (Mother) and Father are the
parents of four minor children. Mother
and Father have a long history of domestic
violence and verbal abuse prompting police responses.
On September
14, 2010, the
County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a dependency petition on behalf of
the minor children. HSA alleged that the
children were at significant risk of
due to the domestic violence that sometimes occurred in their presence. (§ 300, subd. (b).)
On September
15, 2010, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. It found a prima facie case regarding the
in the temporary care and custody of HSA, and set the matter for a jurisdiction
and disposition hearing.
Father, represented by counsel, requested a
continuance of the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing until December 9, 2010. He did not attend
the continued hearing, however, and his attorney could not explain his absence,
stating: "I urged him to be
present, and so I have no real[] grounds for asking for a continuance. He's not here." The juvenile court then held an uncontested
jurisdiction and disposition hearing and received evidence of HSA written
reports.
Following brief argument by the parties, the
juvenile court sustained the allegation of the dependency petition, continued
the children as dependent children, and ordered HSA to provide family
reunification services to Mother and Father.
(§ 300, subd. (b).) The children
were placed in the care of their maternal grandmother.
The family reunification services plan
required Mother and Father to attend parent education and anger management
classes, participate in counseling, and refrain from domestic violence, among
other things. Father did not
substantially comply with his services plan and on March
18, 2011, was arrested in Los Angeles for making terrorist
threats and resisting arrest. Father
provided HSA with a letter from his treating psychiatrist stating that she was
evaluating him for schizoaffective
or bipolar disorder and had prescribed
him. He refused to allow HSA access to
his mental health records, however.
Shortly after the inception of the
dependency, Father began to harass HSA social workers. Subsequently, the juvenile court issued
restraining orders on behalf of three social workers assigned to his case. The harassment consisted of repeated
threatening and profane telephone calls.
On May 24, 2011, Father appeared with
counsel at a six-month review hearing.
HSA recommended that the juvenile court terminate reunification services
to Father. Father did not introduce
evidence or testimony opposing HSA's recommendation. The court terminated Father's services but
continued services to Mother.
By the year's end, Mother allowed her
restraining order against Father to lapse and she began to contact him
again. In turn, Father escalated his
harassment campaign against HSA employees, leading HSA to obtain a workplace
violence restraining order against him.
On January 3,
2012,
HSA filed a modification petition to terminate reunification services to Mother
and to set a permanent plan hearing regarding legal guardianship of the
children. The hearing on the
modification petition was continued at Father and Mother's request. On February 23,
2012,
the juvenile court held a hearing on the modification petition. Father did not appear and telephoned the
court clerk to request another continuance.
The court denied the continuance request and the parties submitted the
matter on the HSA report. The court
granted the modification petition, terminated Mother's services, and set the
matter for a permanent plan hearing.
Father challenges the juvenile court's orders
terminating family reunification services and setting a permanent plan
hearing. HSA responds in part that
Father's writ petition contains many shortcomings‑‑failing to
comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 concerning a statement of
legal issues, citations to the appellate record, and discussion of legal
authorities.
title="">[2] Father has also appended to his writ petition
a collection of irrelevant documents and photographs, some of which bear his
notations.
Pursuant to rule 8.452(a)(1)(D), a writ
petition must include "[a] summary of the grounds of the
petition." Rule 8.452(b)(1)
provides that the petition must be accompanied by a memorandum providing
"a summary of the significant facts" with supporting references to
the record. "The memorandum must
state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point
and support each point by argument and citation of authority." (Rule 8.452(b)(2).) The memorandum "must, at a minimum,
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 [court received
"utterly deficient" writ petition].)
"The petition must be liberally
construed . . . ." (Rule 8.452(a)(1).) But a liberal construction of the petition
cannot cure a complete failure to comply with rule 8.452. The petition here does not contain a
memorandum with a summary of the significant facts with supporting references
to the record. Nor does it "offer
argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested
issues." (Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra,
78 Cal.App.4th at p. 583.)
"Absent exceptional circumstances, the
reviewing court must decide the petition on the merits by written
opinion." (Rule 8.452(h)(1).) Father's utter failure to comply with rule
8.452 constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying the summary denial of
her petition. "Because of the
intolerable burden that would otherwise be foisted on the Courts of Appeal, we
deem the failure to tender and substantively to address a specific material
issue or issues or to furnish an adequate record to be 'exceptional
circumstances' . . . which excuse the court from reviewing and determining a
petition on the merits." (
Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512; see also Glen C.
v. Superior Court, supra, 78
Cal.App.4th 570, 584 [court announced that in the future it intends to
summarily deny petitions that do not comply with rule 8.452];
Cal.App.4th 149, 157 [where petition fails to meet the "threshold
requirements," it should be summarily denied].)
We summarily deny the petition for
extraordinary writ.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT,
P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN,
J.
PERREN,
J.
>
Tari L. Cody, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Gary R., in pro. per.,
for Petitioner.
No appearance for
Respondent.
Leroy Smith, County
Counsel, Oliver G. Hess, Assistant County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
