Michelle M. v. Superior
Filed 9/24/07 Michelle M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
MICHELLE M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent, KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. | F053264 (Super. Ct. No. JD112606) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.
Michelle M., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel and Susan M. Gill, 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) to vacate the juvenile courts order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her infant daughter S. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule (8.452). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner has a long history of drug use, which resulted in the removal and permanent placement of several of her children. The underlying dependency proceedings concern S., who was removed from petitioners custody in November 2006 because of petitioners drug use. The juvenile court adjudged S. a dependent of the court and, at the dispositional hearing in May 2007, denied petitioner reunification services. ( 361.5, subds. (b)(10) & (b)(11).) At the same hearing, the court ordered reunification services for S.s father.
In June 2007, the juvenile court conducted an uncontested review hearing and terminated reunification services for S.s father for failure to comply. Petitioner appeared at the hearing in custody and her attorney advised the court petitioner was scheduled to be released the following month and hoped to be able to visit S. at that time.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for S. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not allege juvenile court error. She merely asks for a chance to participate in reunification services upon her release from custody. Consequently, her petition fails to comport with the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition as set forth in rule 8.452 and precludes any meaningful appellate 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.) Because petitioner failed to comply with rule 8.452, her petition is inadequate for review and requires dismissal. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Levy, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
