Filed 11/29/18 Angela A. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.

Angela A., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Jeremy Meltzer, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner Angela A. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452)[1] from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1)[2] terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for December 20, 2018, as to her 11-month-old daughter, E.A. Mother requests an order granting her additional time to reunify but fails to identify any grounds for juvenile court error. Consequently, we conclude her petition fails to comport with the content requirements of rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

E.A was born in November 2017 while mother was in reunification with her 14- and 11-year-old sons. The juvenile court removed her sons because she engaged in severe domestic violence with her boyfriend, John A., in their presence. The police responded multiple times in 2016 to reports that John kicked her in the chest and stomach, punched her arms and face, strangled her with both hands and drug her through broken glass. However, despite nearly 12 months of services, she minimized the abuse she suffered and blamed others, including the children, for their removal. A review hearing was scheduled for January 2018 at which time the Stanislaus Community Services Agency (agency) recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services as to both boys, neither of whom wanted to return to her custody.

In December 2017, the agency took E.A. into protective custody and placed her in foster care. The agency also filed a dependency petition on her behalf, which the juvenile court sustained. In January 2018, the court ordered mother to complete a domestic violence program and individual counseling. That same month, the court terminated reunification services as to her sons.

Over the ensuing six months, mother was cooperative with the agency and participated in her services. She also visited E.A. at every opportunity. However, she continued to deny there had ever been any domestic violence and said she was no longer in a relationship with John. The agency obtained police reports, however, that indicated otherwise. One pertained to an incident in early May 2018 when John was pulled over shortly after midnight for speeding. According to the report, John was driving his “wife’s” vehicle and she was present and licensed but showed signs of alcohol intoxication. Mother denied being with John when he was pulled over or being drunk. She said she was called and walked 20 minutes to get there. The second incident was a verbal argument that occurred at approximately 2:00 a.m., in early June. Mother first denied that the police went to her home, accusing them of lying. She then stated that her neighbor took her phone and called the police. She said “Juan A.” and a girlfriend were moving into her apartment to be her roommates but argued and she asked them to leave. Juan passed out and left early the next morning. She declined to answer whether John was E.A.’s father.

The agency found mother’s unwillingness to be truthful a major concern and an indication she had not addressed the domestic violence. The agency was also doubtful she would be able to safely parent and protect E.A. if her services were continued given the 21 months she had already received. Consequently, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services at the six-month review hearing.

Mother challenged the agency’s recommendation and testified at the contested six-month review hearing in August 2018. She denied owning the vehicle John was driving during the May incident, claiming she signed it over to him in October 2016. Nevertheless, she paid for the automobile insurance and responded to the police call because she intended to take possession of the car and sell it. She testified the June incident involved her friend Annette and Annette’s boyfriend, Juan A., who argued on her front porch around midnight. Annette called the police using her phone. Mother told Annette she and Juan had to leave. While Annette was on her phone, Juan entered her apartment and fell asleep. She allowed him to sleep there, knowing that Annette would return and wake him up. Meanwhile, she and her pit bull stayed in her car. Around 4:00 a.m., Annette returned for Juan and mother explained the situation to the police when they called.

Mother denied John lived with her or that they dated. The last time they lived together was in October 2016 when her sons were removed. She denied John was present at her home during the June incident or that she spoke to him during the May traffic incident. She saw him “Zero” times since E.A.’s birth. She denied the police reports John strangled, punched and kicked her, claiming the only domestic violence incident occurred in 2014 when she threw a hairbrush at John.

The juvenile court found it would be detrimental to return E.A. to mother’s custody and there was not a substantial probability she could be returned if mother were provided more time to reunify. The court found mother was in denial about the domestic violence, had not learned anything and was not being truthful, stating “I don’t believe the majority of her testimony.”

DISCUSSION

As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Absent a showing of error, a reviewing court should not disturb them.

Rules 8.450-8.452 set forth guidelines pertaining to extraordinary writ petitions. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to conduct a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court’s orders and findings at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l )(4).)

Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. It requires the petitioner to set forth legal arguments with citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with the dictate of rule 8.452(a)(1), the Court of Appeal should liberally construe writ petitions in favor of their adequacy, recognizing that a parent representing himself or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at a minimum articulate a claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Mother does not assert the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. She simply expressed her belief that continued services are warranted because of all the progress she made. Mother attached various documents to her petition: a letter dated December 16, 2018, addressed to “Your honor,” a letter to her 15-year-old son dated July 10, 2017, an undated letter “To whom it may concern[],” a list of notes to herself dated January 16, 2018, a chronology of important dates in February and March 2018 and the last page of a letter from her therapist which is contained in the record.[3] Nowhere in the documents, however, does mother claim the juvenile court erred as required by rule 8.452, and since we do not independently review the appellate record for possible errors (In re Sade C., supra, (1996) 13 Cal.4th at p. 994), we dismiss her petition as facially inadequate for review.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).