Filed 9/19/17 Jennifer H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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. F. Dana Walton, Judge.

Jennifer H., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Steven W. Dahlem, County Counsel, and John P. LaLonde, Contract Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

The juvenile court granted a modification petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388, subd. (a)(1))[1] brought by the Mariposa County Department of Human Services (department) at a contested review hearing and terminated reunification services for petitioner Jennifer H. (mother) as to her now five-year-old son, Jacob. The bases for the department’s petition were the opinions of two psychologists that mother suffers from a mental disability that renders her incapable of utilizing reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(2).)

Mother filed an extraordinary writ petition in propria persona seeking relief from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule).)[2] We conclude mother failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss her petition as facially inadequate for our review.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In December 2015, the juvenile court ordered then four-year-old Jacob removed from mother’s custody after finding her untreated bipolar disorder placed him at a substantial risk of harm. The incident that prompted the court’s intervention occurred approximately four months earlier when mother presented at an emergency room in a manic state with Jacob in her care. She was restrained by a sheriff’s deputy and involuntarily hospitalized. The department took Jacob into protective custody and placed him with April F., who had custody of him before and had a pending request for de facto parent status. The whereabouts of Jacob’s father were unknown.

The juvenile court ordered the department to provide mother reunification services, including two psychological evaluations. The court also appointed April as Jacob’s de facto parent. At the time, mother was under a conservatorship in a lockdown facility in another county.

In November 2016, the juvenile court convened the six-month review hearing. The court had before it a modification petition filed by the department pursuant to section 388, subdivision (a)(1) (section 388 petition) recommending the court terminate mother’s reunification services based on the recommendations of two psychologists. The court set a contested hearing at the request of mother’s attorney and appointed a guardian ad litem.

In June 2017, the juvenile court conducted a contested six- and 12-month review hearing as well as a contested hearing on the department’s section 388 petition. Mother, as well as the two psychologists that evaluated her, testified. Both psychologists affirmed that mother could not benefit from reunification services.

The juvenile court granted the department’s section 388 petition and terminated mother’s reunification services.

DISCUSSION

Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2) authorizes the juvenile court to deny a parent reunification services if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the parent “is suffering from a mental disability … that renders him or her incapable of utilizing those services.”

Mother contends the juvenile court’s ruling was “untimely and [a] misapplication of the law.” As a factual basis for her claim, she states simply, “The doctors speculated as to future behavior without reviewing recent activity or taking into consideration other individual medical opinions.”

“ ‘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.) Rules 8.450-8.452 set forth guidelines pertaining to extraordinary writ petitions. 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).)

Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. It requires the petitioner to set forth legal arguments with citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with the dictate of rule 8.452(a)(1), we 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 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 we will not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Mother does not specify which of the juvenile court’s rulings she is challenging as untimely and a misapplication or in any way articulate how its critical ruling (i.e., termination of reunification services) is error. Further, she criticizes the psychologists’ opinions as speculative and incomplete but fails to show they were insufficient to support the court’s decision to terminate reunification efforts under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2). Thus, her petition lacks the essential component (i.e., claim of juvenile court error), rendering it inadequate in content under the rule. Consequently, we dismiss her petition.

DISPOSITION

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