Filed 4/23/18 Ashley F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ASHLEY F.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY,

Respondent;

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

F076852

(Super. Ct. No. 07CEJ300255-4)


OPINION

THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian M. Arax, Judge.
Ashley F., in pro. per. for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Ashley F. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders issued in January 2018 terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her now eight-month-old daughter, G.L. We conclude mother failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss her petition as facially inadequate for review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.)
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In July 2017, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) placed a protective hold on then newborn G. after she and mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother admitted using methamphetamine a few days prior to G.’s birth. At the time, G. was mother’s third drug-exposed child and the juvenile court had terminated her reunification services for G.’s brothers the month before because mother failed to comply. G. was placed with her maternal grandmother.
The department filed a dependency petition on G.’s behalf, alleging she came within the juvenile court’s dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition listed Richard L. as G.’s presumed father. Richard had a felony warrant for welfare fraud.
The juvenile court ordered G. detained pursuant to the petition, offered the parents drug testing services and set a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing (combined hearing). In its report for the combined hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court adjudge G. a dependent child as alleged in the petition and deny the parents reunification services; mother under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (13) and Richard under subdivision (b)(10).
The combined hearing was continued and conducted as a contested hearing in January 2018. In the meantime, mother’s parental rights were terminated as to G.’s two siblings and she was arrested for trying to smuggle cocaine into the county jail for Richard, who was incarcerated for drug possession and identity theft.
The parents appeared at the combined hearing and their attorneys presented argument only. Mother’s attorney argued there was no evidence G. tested positive for methamphetamine or any other drug at birth and asked the court to strike that allegation from the petition. County counsel referred the court to drug test results attached to its addendum report reflecting that mother and G. tested positive for methamphetamine on the day of G.’s birth.
The juvenile court sustained the petition, denied the parents reunification services as recommended and set a section 366.26 hearing. Only mother filed a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, absent a showing of error, this court will not disturb them.
A parent seeking review of the juvenile court’s orders from the setting hearing must, as mother did here, file an extraordinary writ petition to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow this court to review the juvenile court’s orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs.
Rule 8.452 requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).)
Mother does not identify a specific order as being erroneous. She simply asserts G. was a full-term and healthy baby and the test results reflecting the presence of methamphetamine are incorrect. In effect, mother challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding G. tested positive for methamphetamine. However, she does not address documentary evidence from the laboratory establishing the presence of methamphetamine in G.’s system. Nor does she challenge the juvenile court’s order denying her reunification services.
Since mother fails to set forth a claim of error and since we do not independently review the appellate record for possible error (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994), her petition is facially inadequate and insufficient for review. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.