Tina C. v. Superior Court
Filed 11/19/13 Tina C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
>
TINA C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. | F068077 (Super. Ct. No. 13CEJ300017) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for
Tina C., in
pro. per., for Petitioner.
No
appearance for Respondent.
No
appearance for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Tina C. (mother) in propria persona seeks an
extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from a juvenile court’s
order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions
Code section 366.26 hearing as to her one-year-old son.
makes no claim of error, however, in her petition. At most, she checks boxes on the form
petition requesting orders for reunification services, visitation, and return
of custody without explanation. Due to
the inadequacy of mother’s petition, we will dismiss it.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of writ proceedings such as this is to facilitate review of
a juvenile court’s order setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and
implement a permanent plan for a dependent child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).) A court’s decision is presumed correct. (Denham
v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to a petitioner to raise specific
issues and substantively address them. (§ 366.26,
subd. (l).) This court will not independently review the
record for possible error. (
994.) As noted above, mother does not
raise any issues in her petition.
Out of an abundance of caution, we have reviewed the record surrounding
the order setting the section 366.26 hearing in relation to mother’s requests
for relief. The record, however,
consists of undisputed evidence, including mother’s own testimony, that she was
not regularly participating in the court-ordered treatment plan. In addition, there was neither evidence of
any progress on mother’s part in addressing the problems which led to the
child’s removal, nor evidence of a substantial probability that the child could
be returned to mother within the next six months. Consequently, there was no legal reason for
the juvenile court to refrain from terminating services and setting the section
366.26 hearing. (See § 366.21, subd.
(e).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ
is dismissed. This opinion is
immediately final as to this court.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J.,
and Kane, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
