Juanita H. v. Superior Court

Filed 4/3/07 Juanita H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT^*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ. Robert J. Anspach, Judge.

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

No appearance for Respondent.

B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Thurston, 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 (rule)) to vacate the order of the juvenile court 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 rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

Petitioner has a history of mental illness, drug abuse, domestic violence and child abuse. In May 2006, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) took her youngest child, then two-year-old S., into protective custody after petitioner was arrested for being under the influence of drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, which was located within S.s reach, and child endangerment. Petitioner admitted daily use of methamphetamine for the prior year. She also stated she was taking psychotropic medication and was under the care of a psychiatrist.

At the time of S.s removal, petitioner and her husband, David, S.s father, were living separately. David had full legal and physical custody of S. and petitioner had supervised visitation. Although he was aware of petitioners severe mental illness and drug use, he allowed her unsupervised visits with S. for days at a time. He and petitioner also maintained a relationship, which was mutually combative.

The department filed a dependency petition on S.s behalf, alleging petitioners mental illness, drug abuse and history of child neglect as well as petitioner and Davids domestic violence placed S. at risk of harm. ( 300, subds. (b) & (j).) The court ordered S. detained pursuant to the petition and the department placed her in foster care and ultimately with her paternal uncle.

In July, petitioner and David submitted the matter on the petition and the court adjudged S. a dependent child as described therein. The court also ordered S. removed from her parents custody and ordered petitioner and David to participate in domestic violence and parenting counseling and participate in weekly supervised visitation. The court also ordered petitioner to participate in mental health and substance abuse counseling and submit to random drug testing.

Over the next six months, David minimally complied with his reunification plan and petitioner failed to enroll in any of her court-ordered classes and continued to test positive for drugs. In addition, she continued her on-again-off-again relationship with David even though it resulted in violence and her arrest, and her behavior was erratic and inappropriate. During visitation in the presence of S., she rambled about identity theft, about being raped by David and his friends, and claimed David and his girlfriend were trying to make her crazy so that David could have custody of S. She also made disjointed comments apparently to herself such as I love you but dont stick that needle in me, Tell people to stay away from your bed because they have [knives] and So you want to hurt me? Ill cut you in half bitch.

In its six-month status review, the department informed the court that S. was adoptable and that her relative caretakers wanted to adopt her. The department also recommended the court terminate reunification services as to both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing.

In January 2006, the juvenile court convened an uncontested six-month status review hearing. David personally appeared, but petitioner did not. Her attorney informed the court that he spoke with her by telephone the day before. She told him she wanted another attorney and hung up. The court denied her attorneys request to continue the hearing, terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing in May 2007. This petition ensued.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner accuses the department of kidnapping, gross incompetence, attempted identity theft, child endangerment, falsifying records and obstruction of justice, none of which are supported by the appellate record. She also challenges the information contained in the departments six-month status report. However, she fails to minimally comply with the content requirements set forth in rule 8.452 by identifying juvenile court error for our review.

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)(2).)

Petitioner fails to cite to any evidence to support her accusations against the department. Further, she waived her right to challenge the content of the departments six-month status report by not objecting to its admission into evidence at the six-month review hearing. (Evid.Code 353.)

Finally, we would not reverse this case even if we reviewed the juvenile courts findings and orders issued at the six-month review hearing. Petitioner failed to regularly participate in and make substantive progress in her court-ordered services and S. was under the age of three when removed from petitioners custody. Therefore, in light of the reasonable services afforded her and the absence of a substantial probability petitioner could reunify with S. if services were extended, the court properly terminated her services and set a section 366.26 hearing. ( 366.21, subd. (e).)

DISPOSITION

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

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.

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

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