Filed 4/24/18 Richard G. v. Superior Court CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RICHARD G.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MADERA COUNTY,

Respondent;

MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

F076870

(Super. Ct. Nos. MJP016438, MJP016751, MJP016867)


OPINION

THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Thomas L. Bender, Judge.
Richard G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Richard G. (father) in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order issued at a 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his three children, now ranging in age from six to nine years (collectively, the children). We conclude father’s writ petition is facially inadequate for review and dismiss it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.)
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In October 2016, the Madera County Department of Social Services (department) took the children into protective custody because their mother was using methamphetamine and engaging in domestic violence with her boyfriend in their presence. The children were placed together in foster care. Father was incarcerated in state prison for physically abusing one of the children. The juvenile court found he was the children’s presumed father.
In March 2017, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children, ordered reunification services for their mother, and denied father reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6) (severe physical harm to a child).
Mother was not compliant with her services plan. She continued to use methamphetamine and demonstrated neither the ability nor the desire to remain clean and sober. Consequently, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services and select a permanent plan of legal guardianship for the children with their paternal grandmother.
In January 2018, at the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the children. Father did not appear at the hearing. The children’s mother did not file a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, absent a showing of error, this court will not disturb them.
A parent seeking review of the juvenile court’s orders from the setting hearing must, as father did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow this court to review the juvenile court’s orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs.
Rule 8.452 requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).)
Aside from information identifying the children as the subjects of the petition and check marks indicating the remedy father seeks (i.e., an order for reunification services and visitation or return of custody), father’s writ petition is blank, including item No. 6, where he was required to identify the grounds on which the juvenile court erred.
When the petitioner does not allege legal error, as occurred here, there is nothing for this court to review. Consequently, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).