Beatriz B. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 2/28/07 Beatriz B. v. Sup. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nancy C. Staggs, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI,  21.)

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

No appearance for Respondent.

David A. Prentice, County Counsel, and Miranda Neal, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452 [formerly rule 38-38.1] (rule)) to either regain custody of or obtain continued reunification services for her three children or to compel respondent court to place the children with their maternal grandmother. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

This petition concerns petitioners three children, four-year-old M., two-year-old N. and six-month-old R., who were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court in May 2006 because of petitioners drug use and failure to provide for her childrens support. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  300, subds. (b) & (g).)^[1] The juvenile court placed the children together in a foster home and ordered a plan of reunification for petitioner, which included drug treatment and random drug testing. The court also ordered the supervising agency to arrange visitation.

Over the next six months, petitioner resisted drug treatment and continued to test positive for illicit substances. She also struggled to manage her children without assistance during her biweekly supervised visitation. Consequently, at the six-month review hearing on November 2, 2006, the court deemed the children to be a sibling group, terminated reunification services, set a section 366.26 hearing as to all three children and ordered them assessed for adoption. The court also ordered that all previous orders not in conflict remain in full force and effect. Petitioner did not personally appear at the hearing but was represented by counsel who offered no evidence or argument.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner does not cite this court tothe appellate record or legal authority to support a claim of juvenile court error. Rather, she asks this court to grant custody of her children to their maternal grandmother. She also asks for reunification services, visitation and custody.

Rule 8.452 specifies, inter alia, that the writ petition must include a summary of the significant facts and identify contested legal points with citation to legal authority and argument. (Rule 8 .452(b).) At a minimum, the writ petition must 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.) While we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy, in this case, we conclude the petition is inadequate on its face. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)

Even if this court were to construe the petition as raising cognizable issues concerning custody, provision of reunification services and visitation, we would find no reason to reverse or modify the challenged juvenile court orders. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994; Glen C. v. Superior Courtsupra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 580.) This court cannot grant custody of the children to petitioner or to their maternal grandmother. Rather, placement of the children is a matter to be brought before the juvenile court by means of a section 388 petition. Further, the juvenile court properly terminated reunification services to petitioner in light of her failure to comply with her court-ordered plan and the unlikelihood the children could be returned to her custody following continued services. ( 366.21, subd. (e) & (g)(1).) Finally, there is no evidence that the court modified its visitation order or that it would have been an abuse of discretion if it had. (See In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

^*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Cornell, J.

^[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.