Filed 3/28/22 B.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Susan M. Gill, Judge.

B.C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Kelli R. Falk, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner B.C. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450−8.452)[1] from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e))[2] terminating reunification services as to her now one-year-old son, R.R., and setting a section 366.26 hearing on May 16, 2022. Mother seeks a writ directing the juvenile court to provide her reunification services. She contends in her writ petition that she was “not given an opportunity to reunify” but does not cite to the appellate record or legal authority to support her contention. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the content requirements of rule 8.452 regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Newborn R.R. was placed into protective custody at the hospital in February 2021 by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) after mother tested positive for methamphetamine. She admitted using methamphetamine during the pregnancy and appeared to have been using the drug for a while. She had another child who was in her sister’s custody. R.R.’s alleged father was incarcerated for first degree burglary, violation of postrelease supervision and possession of a controlled substance.

The juvenile court ordered R.R. detained pursuant to a dependency petition alleging in part that mother placed him at a substantial risk of harm because of her

substance abuse. (§ 300, subd. (b).)[3] The court ordered supervised visitation for mother and ordered R.R.’s father, Jose R., to provide a DNA sample for paternity testing. The department placed R.R. with the maternal aunt who had custody of his sibling.

The juvenile court adjudged R.R. a dependent child as alleged and in June 2021 ordered mother to participate in parenting and substance abuse services, including random drug testing. The court advised her that services could be terminated at the six‑month review hearing if she did not participate regularly and make substantive progress in her services plan. The court did not order reunification services for Jose whose paternity testing established him as R.R.’s biological father. The court set the six-month review hearing for December 3, 2021.

The six-month review hearing was continued and conducted on January 18, 2022. In its report for the hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services. Mother initially enrolled in a parenting class but stopped attending and did not reenroll. She said she was going to admit herself for inpatient substance abuse treatment but did not follow through. She enrolled in random drug testing but consistently tested positive for amphetamine or methamphetamine or failed to appear to test. Although she missed visits, the visits she attended were of good quality.

Mother’s attorney lodged a general objection to the department’s recommendations at the six-month review hearing. Mother made an offer of proof accepted by the juvenile court that she had a house fire, lost nearly everything she had and had been trying to get in touch with the social worker. The court found mother had made no progress toward alleviating the reason for R.R.’s removal and that it would be detrimental to R.R. to place him in her custody. The court further found mother failed to regularly participate and make substantive progress in her court-ordered treatment plan and there was not a substantial probability R.R. could be returned to her custody within another six months of services. The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.

DISCUSSION

“ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)

The purpose of these writ petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court’s orders and findings issued at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4)(A).)

Rule 8.452, which sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition, requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made and to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1), we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible, recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least 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.)

In No. 6 on the preprinted JV-825 “Petition for Extraordinary Writ” designated for identifying the grounds on which the court’s order was erroneous mother simply wrote “not given an opportunity to reunify.” Since mother was provided reunification services, her statement may signify that she does not believe she was provided appropriate services or the department did not assist her in accessing the services provided. In any event, she does not develop her statement into a legal argument by citing to specific pages in the record, citing legal authority or even explaining how she was deprived the opportunity to reunify. In the absence of a specific assertion of juvenile court error and citation to the record, we cannot review mother’s claim. Further, we have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the six-month review hearing, for purposes of setting forth the summary of facts and would conclude were we to review this case that mother was provided reasonable reunification services but failed to comply.

We dismiss mother’s writ petition because it fails to comport with rule 8.452.

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).

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

[1] Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

[2] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[3] An allegation under section 300, subdivision (g) (no provision for support) that mother’s whereabouts were unknown during R.R.’s hospitalization was dismissed.