Filed 12/17/18 Gregory C. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Gary Green, Commissioner.

Gregory C., 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-

On September 27, 2018, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for the mother of now 13-year-old I.C., the subject of these writ proceedings, at an 18-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.22, subd. (a)(1))[1] and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 3, 2019. Gregory C., biological father of I.C., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452),[2] directing the juvenile court to grant him custody of I.C. Gregory does not, however, comply with the rule by asserting juvenile court error. Consequently, we dismiss his petition as facially inadequate for review.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Eleven-year-old I.C. and her 15-year-old brother, D.C., were taken into protective custody by the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) in April 2017 at the police station after they disclosed being physically abused and neglected by their mother and refused to return home. They described being struck frequently with a broom, having no food in the house and being called “bitches, hoes, and worthless.” Mother told them, “Hate you f****** kids, I don’t want you here.” She smoked marijuana, drank wine daily and they suspected she was using drugs because she never left her room, was angry all the time and didn’t care about them.

The agency filed a dependency petition on the children’s behalf, identifying Gregory as an alleged father to the children. He reportedly lived in Merced but his whereabouts were unknown. The children had not seen him in several years. The agency placed the children in a Merced County foster home.

Gregory appeared telephonically at the detention hearing and the Merced County Juvenile Court ordered paternity testing. At an uncontested jurisdictional hearing in June 2017, the court adjudged the children its dependents and transferred the case to Fresno County.

The Fresno County Juvenile Court (juvenile court) accepted jurisdiction in June 2017 and appointed counsel for mother, the only parent present. The court ordered the mother to participate in reunification services at the dispositional hearing in August 2017 but denied Gregory services because, although he established presumed father status as to D.C., his whereabouts were unknown and, as I.C.’s alleged father, he was not entitled to them.

Over the next year, mother was minimally compliant with her services plan. Notably, her drug test results in July 2018 were consistent with marijuana and methamphetamine use at which point she stopped drug testing. She had unsupervised visits with I.C. from March through July 2018 but failed to return her after a visit in July and I.C. became a runaway. As a result, the Fresno County Department of Social Services filed a modification petition (§ 388, subd. (a)(1)) in August 2018, asking the juvenile court to terminate her services and reinstate supervised visitation. Also, during this time, paternity testing established Gregory’s biological paternity as to I.C., and D.C. became a runaway, refusing to be placed.

On September 27, 2018, the juvenile court conducted a combined hearing to review services under the 12- and 18-month review statutes (§§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1) & 366.22, subd. (a)(1)) and rule on the modification petition. By this time, I.C. had been returned to foster care. The court granted the petition and ordered a minimum of one supervised visit a month, terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing as to I.C. and ordered D.C. into long-term foster care. The mother did not file 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 Gregory did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 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).)

In his petition, Gregory seeks full custody of I.C. He states he is drug free and wants to provide her private schooling, so she can complete high school and attend college. There are numerous females in the family prepared to raise I.C. to be a “great woman or lady” and Gregory believes I.C. deserves “her real family,” a reference to her paternal relatives. Gregory left blank, however, item No. 6 of the petition, where he was required to identify the grounds on which the juvenile court erred.

When the petitioner does not allege legal error, as occurred here, there is nothing for this court to review. Consequently, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

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).