Filed 9/24/18 David p. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
| DAVID P.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY,
Respondent;
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
|
F077770
(Super. Ct. No. 09CEJ300259-2)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Gary L. Green, Commissioner.
David P., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner David P. (father) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a dispositional hearing on a supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 387)[1] denying him reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his now 11-year-old son, Daniel P. Father believes he should be provided reunification services and Daniel should be placed with Cecilia E., father’s spouse.[2] We conclude Daniel’s petition fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452,[3] which governs the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. Consequently, we dismiss the petition.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Dependency proceedings were initiated in October 2009 when then two-year-old Daniel, along with his five-year-old half-brother, Francisco, were removed from the custody of their mother. The children had been placed in the care of their maternal grandmother as part of a safety plan to protect them from their mother’s drug abuse. The Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took the children into protective custody after the mother removed them from their grandmother’s care.
The juvenile court elevated father to presumed father status as to both children and ordered him and the children’s mother to participate in reunification services. The department initially placed the children together. Daniel was subsequently placed separately with his paternal great aunt, Terry.
By July 2011, the juvenile court had terminated reunification services for both parents and ordered Francisco into a legal guardianship. In February 2012, following a contested section 366.26 hearing, the court appointed Terry as Daniel’s legal guardian and retained its jurisdiction over the case. The court did so out of concern for Daniel’s mental and emotional needs and the adversarial relationship between father and Terry. The court terminated its dependency jurisdiction in May 2014.
In May 2018, the department removed Daniel from Terry’s custody at her request and filed a supplemental petition, alleging she resorted to slapping his face with her hand and hitting his buttocks with a belt to control his assaultive and destructive behavior. The department placed Daniel in a group home.
Father appeared in custody at the hearings on the supplemental petition. He asked that Cecilia E., his then ex-wife and current girlfriend, be considered for placement.
In its report for the dispositional hearing, the department informed the juvenile court that Daniel had been diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder and attention deficit disorder. He stated he was doing well in the group home and wanted to continue visits with his family. The department also informed the court that father expected to be sentenced to approximately four years in prison on June 26, 2018, and recommended the court deny him services.
On June 21, 2018, at the dispositional hearing, father appeared in custody and submitted the matter. The juvenile court terminated the legal guardianship, ordered Daniel placed in foster care, denied father reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for October 4, 2018. The court ordered monthly visits for father while he was in local custody and quarterly visits while in the custody of the California Department of Corrections.
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 citations 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 him 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.)
Other than to say the juvenile court should have ordered reunification services for him, father does not challenge the court’s order denying him services. The basis for the court’s denial order was section 361.5, subdivision (e), which authorizes it to deny services on a finding by clear and convincing evidence services would be detrimental to the child. In assessing detriment, the court must consider, among other factors, the child’s age, the degree of parent-child bonding, the length of incarceration, the nature of the crime, the degree of detriment to the child if services are not offered and the likelihood the parent will be discharged from incarceration. Though father and Daniel had a longstanding relationship, they did not have a strong parent-child bond and father was facing a four-year prison sentence for fleeing a peace officer and reckless driving, resisting a peace officer, malicious damage to property and unlawful entry of a noncommercial dwelling. He was on probation when he committed these crimes and had prior convictions in 2005 and 2015 for which he served prison sentences. Also, father had already received more than 18 months of reunification services and was unlikely to benefit if provided more. In addition, the department did not believe it would be detrimental to Daniel if the court did not provide father services.
As to father’s request that the juvenile court consider placing Daniel with Cecilia, it appears the department was assisting her with the approval process. According to the record, she was scheduled to attend the “Resource Family Approval” orientation on June 25, 2018.
We conclude father failed to articulate a claim of juvenile court error. Consequently, his petition is facially inadequate for our review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).
* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2] Although father refers to Cecilia as his “spouse,” she is elsewhere referred to as his “ex-wife and current girlfriend.”
[3] Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
