Filed 9/18/18 M.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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. Frank Dougherty, Judge. (Retired judge of the Stanislaus County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)

Dependency Legal Services, Sean M. Collins and Angela J. Cobb, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena R. Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner Margarita A. (mother), seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452)[1] from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1))[2] terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now 22-month-old daughter, Lori. Mother contends the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her reunification services was unjust and she would like another chance to prove herself. Mother, however, does not assert that the juvenile court’s rulings were legal error. Consequently, we conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In October 2017, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) was contacted concerning then 10-month-old Lori who was being treated in the emergency room for amphetamine ingestion. Mother and Nathaniel S., Lori’s father, had taken her to the emergency room. Mother reported she awoke from a nap around 1:00 p.m., and found Lori shivering and acting abnormally. She claimed not to know how Lori ingested amphetamines.

Lori was in acute condition upon her arrival at the emergency room. She could not sit still and was grinding her teeth. She was wide-eyed, sweating and hot to the touch. Her heart rate was 180-200 and her blood pressure was in the 140/120 range. She was transported to a university hospital and admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit.

Mother was unkempt, unshowered and had sores on her arms and upper chest. Her feet were dirty and she appeared to have burn-like marks on her fingertips. She denied using drugs, stating she last used two years before. However, she agreed to drug test and tested positive for the active ingredients in methamphetamine, ecstasy and marijuana. She could not understand why her test results were positive.

Mother reported she had an older daughter who was in a guardianship with the maternal grandmother. She also had another child who died shortly after birth from methamphetamine intoxication. She said she had posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder and depression. She was not taking and did not believe she needed medication because she felt good and was happy.

Mother was arrested for cruelty to a child with possible death. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).) Prior to being transported to jail, she agreed to a walkthrough of her home. Her home was cluttered and filthy, with large piles of dirty clothes, miscellaneous garbage items and random items including tools and equipment. There was no running water and no signs of food. Drug pipes and drug paraphernalia lie within a child’s reach.

Lori was taken into protective custody at the hospital and placed with her maternal aunt and uncle.

The juvenile court ordered Lori detained pursuant to a dependency petition and the agency provided the parents referrals for parenting, substance abuse and counseling services. A social worker arranged for mother to have a substance abuse assessment while in jail and she was to begin residential treatment at Nirvana Drug and Alcohol Treatment program (Nirvana) upon her release from jail. However, she was released on November 13, 2017, and did not check into treatment. Nor did she contact her social worker, initiate any of her services or attempt to visit Lori. Nathaniel did not initiate any of his services either.

The juvenile court ordered Lori removed from parental custody at the dispositional hearing in December 2017 and ordered a plan of reunification comprising the services previously offered. The court set a progress review hearing for February 2018 and the six-month review hearing for May 2018.

By February 2018, mother had not participated in any parenting classes or counseling sessions and in late January, she tested positive for methamphetamine, ecstasy and marijuana. Nathaniel was equally noncompliant. The juvenile court admonished them about their lack of progress at the progress review hearing on February 23, 2018.

In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for Lori with her maternal aunt and uncle. Mother remained noncompliant with her parenting and mental health counseling service requirements. In addition, she tested positive for methamphetamine, ecstasy and marijuana on April 11, 2018, and for amphetamine and marijuana upon her entry into Nirvana on April 28. She and Nathaniel were also facing felony child cruelty charges.

On May 31, 2018, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review hearing. Mother testified she completed 34 days of treatment at Nirvana. She did not start services sooner because she was depressed and needed the kind of services she was receiving at Nirvana. She denied giving Lori amphetamine and maintained that she woke up and found Lori with a bottle that she did not give her. She acknowledged that Nathaniel was probably still using drugs and was not in treatment. She had not broken up with him and expected to have a relationship with him when she finished treatment. However, she said she would not continue their relationship if he was still using drugs.

The juvenile court found mother and Nathaniel failed to regularly participate in their court-ordered services and their progress in resolving the problem that required Lori’s removal was “poor.” The court terminated reunification services after finding reasonable services were provided and there was not a substantial probability Lori could be returned to parental custody. The court set the section 366.26 hearing for September 27, 2018.

DISCUSSION

As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Absent a showing of error, a reviewing court should not disturb them.

Rules 8.450-8.452 set forth guidelines pertaining to extraordinary writ petitions. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to conduct a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court’s orders and findings 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 citations to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with the dictate of rule 8.452(a)(1), the court of appeal should 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 a minimum 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 the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Mother does not identify a specific legal error committed by the juvenile court in terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Instead, she informs this court she continues to participate in services at Nirvana. She attributes her delay in engaging in treatment to her chronic depression and drug addiction. She believes her “services and rights were terminated in an unjust manner” and would like an opportunity to prove herself. She fails, however, to articulate a claim of juvenile court error. Consequently, her petition is facially inadequate for our review.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).