Terry
W. v. Superior Court
Filed
2/26/13 Terry
W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
TERRY W.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF VENTURA COUNTY,
Respondent;
VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Real Party in
Interest.
2d Civil No.
B245431
(Super. Ct.
Nos. J068502, J068503, J068504)
(
Terry W., (father) seeks
28, 2012 juvenile court order terminating
setting a permanent plan hearing for his children,
Allysa R., Nicole R., and Jayden W.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c).)
father failed to comply with the requirements of
8.452.
Christina R. (mother) and father are the
parents of Allysa R., Nicole R., and Jayden W.
On September 27, 2011 Ventura County Human
Services Agency (HSA) and the police removed the family from a home that was
"yellow tagged" for no working utilities. A code enforcement officer reported that
father and mother "took over" the house after it was foreclosed upon
and slept in the attic. The front door
was barricaded shut and the toilet was filled with urine and feces. Pornography and debris were on the floor and
the walls were covered with graffiti depicting sexual images and
children and dirty clothes and empty beer cans were scattered about. No food was in the house other than a moldy
bagel, a half gallon of milk, and two cartons of rotting milk.
Mother and the children were permitted to
vacate the premises.
After HSA obtained a
protective custody warrant to detain the children, father said the two older
children were staying with friends but did not know their address or telephone
number. The
could not find mother or the children.
On September
30, 2011 the two older children were detained at school. HSA and the Ventura Police returned to the
yellow-tagged house and found a woman (Gretchen) in the backyard who appeared
to be under the influence of a controlled substance and had difficulty waking
up. The woman stated that she was
father's girlfriend and did not know how she got into the backyard or how long
she had been passed out.
The officers found three-year-old Jayden
asleep in the attic with mother. The
attic space was full of rat feces and debris, knives were stuck in the walls,
and an attic door accessed a roof deck that lacked a railing or child barrier. When mother saw the officers, she wrapped her
arms and legs around Jayden, and squeezed so hard that Jayden urinated on
herself. Mother refused to release
Jayden until the officers drew their firearms and physically restrained
her. Mother was arrested for felony
child endangerment, being under the influence of a controlled substance, and
resisting arrest.
Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA)
filed dependency petitions on October 4, 2011 for failure to protect (§
300, subd. (b), serious emotional damage (§ 300, subd. (c)), and no provision
for support (§ 300, subd. (g)). The
petitions alleged that mother and father had a significant criminal history and
suffered from substance abuse, and that mother was in jail and unable to
provide for the children. The detention
report stated that father was arrested in June 2011 for being under the
influence of a controlled substance and child endangerment during a traffic
stop. Jayden was in the car without a
car baby seat. A week later, father was
arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance.
The trial court detained the children and, at
a December 1, 2011 jurisdiction/disposition
hearing, ordered reunification services and supervised visits.
At the April 16, 2013 six-month review hearing,
HSA reported that mother was living with friends, had missed drug tests, had
not yet enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program, and appeared to be
under the influence of a controlled substance at a March 22, 2012 supervised
visit. Father was not enrolled in a
drug treatment program, had missed
living in the house with his girlfriend Gretchen. Father claimed that he had no money to
support the family but admitted buying the two older children $400 Radio Shack
gift cards to buy cell phones. Appellant
said he "wanted the girls to be happy."
At the 12-month review hearing, HSA reported
that mother had been arrested for a Proposition 36 drug treatment violation and
was arrested on another occasion for trespassing and resisting arrest. Mother was not following the case plan, had
failed to remain drug free and submit to regular drug testing, had not found
stable housing for the children, and was not attending counseling or parenting
classes.
HSA reported that father was arrested for
resisting arrest and being under the influence on June
21, 2012, and was arrested a second time on an outstanding warrant for possession
of a controlled substance and being under the influence of a controlled
substance. Father was not following the
case plan, had missed all his drug tests, and was still living in the
yellow-tagged house with his girlfriend.
It was uncontroverted that the children were
doing well in school, had no development issues, and were bonded to their
foster/adopt parents, Father visited the
children when he was not incarcerated and was asked to refrain from making
promises about getting the children back
Father told the social worker, "I can tell them anything I want to
tell them. You guys came in and
ultimately screwed up our lives. . . ."
The trial court terminated services and set
the matter for a permanent plan hearing. (§ 366.26.)
Discussion
Father alleges that his constitutional rights
were violated and requests that services be reinstated and the children
returned to his custody. The writ
petition lacks a statement of legal issues, citations to the record, or a
discussion of legal authorities.
California Rules of Court, 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, 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 ["utterly
deficient" writ petition].)
The
failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 constitutes
exceptional circumstances justifying the summary denial of his 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." (Joyce
G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512; Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157 [where
petition fails to meet the "threshold requirements," it should be
summarily denied].)
At oral argument, appellant requested that he
be given more time to participate in and show that he could comply with the
reunification services plan. This is an
appropriate request to the trial court but not on appeal. The request is denied.
The petition for extraordinary writ is
denied.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT,
P.J.
PERREN,
J.
Ellen Gay Conroy, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Terry W., in pro per, Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent.
Oliver G. Hess, Assistant County Counsel. for Real Party In Interest
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
