Filed 12/14/17 S.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

S.B.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY,

Respondent;

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

F076286

(Super. Ct. Nos. 517609, 517610)


OPINION

THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
S.B., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
S.B. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order issued in September 2017, setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her now 10-year-old son, Antonio, and five-year-old daughter, Guadalupe. The September 2017, hearing was a contested 12-month review hearing at which the court terminated reunification services for the children’s father, Alexander V. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) Mother was denied reunification services at the dispositional hearing in August 2016. We conclude mother failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss her petition as facially inadequate for review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.)
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In June 2016, Antonio and Guadalupe, then eight and four years old, respectively, were removed from the custody of their father, Alexander, after law enforcement found a loaded .22-caliber rifle, heroin, and syringes in Alexander’s home during a probation search. Alexander was on probation for theft and a weapons charge. Alexander and his girlfriend were arrested.
The Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) filed a dependency petition on the children’s behalf, alleging they came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (g) (no provision for support), and (j) (abuse of sibling). Specific allegations as to Alexander included his 10 year heroin addiction and incarceration. Allegations as to mother referenced her 20-year heroin addiction; positive toxicology for heroin, methamphetamine and methadone during the delivery of the children’s sibling in 2014; and her failure to utilize substance abuse treatment as part of a reunification plan. The agency placed the children with their paternal grandmother.
The juvenile court ordered reunification services for Alexander at the dispositional hearing in August 2016. The court denied mother reunification services but granted her visitation.
Alexander failed to comply with his reunification services, including substance abuse treatment, and was incarcerated in April 2017. By July 2017, his only contact with the children was by telephone because he was not approved for in-person visitation. Mother, meanwhile, regularly visited the children once a month but visits were reportedly chaotic and stressful for mother and the children.
On September 12, 2017, the parents appeared with counsel at the contested 12-month review hearing. Alexander’s attorney made an offer of proof that was accepted by counsel. Mother’s attorney objected to the setting of a section 366.26 hearing, but did not offer any evidence or argument. The juvenile court terminated Alexander’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 12, 2018, to consider a permanent plan of adoption for the children with their paternal grandmother.
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 mother did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court. 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).)
Mother filed her writ petition on October 19, 2017, informing this court of a November 12, 2017, release date. She did not claim the juvenile court erred in setting a section 366.26 hearing. Rather, she requested an extension of time to file “proper court papers” and an order directing the juvenile court to provide her reunification services.
Since mother fails to set forth a claim of error and since we do not independently review the appellate record for possible error (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994), her petition is facially inadequate and insufficient for review. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.