Linda H. v. Superior Court
Filed 7/21/06 Linda H. v. Superior Court CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| LINDA H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE COUNTY, Respondent, TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. |
F050342
(Super. Ct. Nos. JV5968, JV5969, & JV5970)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. William G. Polley, Judge.
Linda H., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel, Sarah Carillo and Laurel Prager, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38-38.1 (rule)) to vacate the order of the juvenile court issued at a contested 12-month review hearing setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to her children, T., B. and C. We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 38.1(a) and (b) and will dismiss the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner has a long history of child welfare intervention dating back to 1985 and periodically thereafter for neglecting and endangering her children, emotionally and physically abusing them, exposing them to sexual abuse and engaging in domestic violence. This case concerns petitioner's three youngest children, T., B., and C., who, in March 2005 at the ages of six, four and two respectively, were removed from her custody by the social services department (department) after C. was found for the second time in a month wandering in the middle of a busy highway. At the time, the children's father Robert was not living in the home.
Following the children's removal, the court detained them and sustained allegations that petitioner failed to provide adequate supervision, shelter and clothing and that she failed to protect them from sexual abuse perpetrated by a relative. (§ 300, subd. (b).) At the dispositional hearing, the court ordered reunification services for petitioner and Robert and set a six-month review hearing.
Over the course of the next six months, petitioner failed to comply with her case plan. Consequently, at the contested six-month review hearing on November 18, 2005, the juvenile court terminated her services.[2] However, the court granted Robert an additional six months of services.
On April 27, 2006, after Robert failed to complete the objectives of his case plan, the juvenile court terminated his services as well and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 22, 2006.[3] This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Rule 38.1(a) and (b) sets forth the content requirements of an extraordinary writ petition taken from dependency proceedings. Rule 38.1(b) specifically requires that the petition include points and authorities, including a summary of the facts as well as points of alleged error supported by citation to the appellate record and to legal authority. However, failure to strictly comply with the content requirements of the rule is not fatal to a petitioner as this court will liberally construe a petition in favor of its sufficiency. (Rule 38.1(a)(2).)
In this case, even the broadest reading and most liberal construction of the petition would not permit any meaningful review of the underlying matter. In the space provided on the form petition, petitioner simply states â€
