Felicia G. v. Superior Court
Filed 3/15/07 Felicia G. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FELICIA G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent, TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest. | F052004 (Super. Ct. No. JJV061261A) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Juvenile Court Referee.
Felicia G., in pro.per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Amy Marie Costa, 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) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her daughter S. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (Rule 8.452). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In October 2006, newborn S. was taken into protective custody after she was born drug-exposed. At a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in December, the juvenile court sustained a dependency petition alleging petitioners drug use placed S. at risk of harm ( 300, subd. (b)) and assumed dependency jurisdiction. The court also denied petitioner reunification services based on her extensive history of drug use and failure to complete court-ordered drug treatment ( 361.5, subd. (b)(13)) and set a section 366.26 hearing for April 13, 2007, to consider a permanent plan of adoption. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not cite this court tothe appellate record or legal authority to support a claim of juvenile court error. Rather, her petition consists of the following three phrases: going to a recovery home, change of circumstances, and continue services.
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).) Further, to the extent petitioner may be seeking a modification to the courts order denying her reunification services based on changed circumstances, she must file a section 388[2]petition in the juvenile court.
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 Lawyers.
*Before Harris, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Section 388 allows the parent of a child adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court to petition the court to change, modify or set aside any order upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.
