Paul R. v. Superior Court
Filed 4/3/07 Paul R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
PAUL R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. | F052168 (Super. Ct. No. JJV058148E) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ. Charlotte A. Wittig, Juvenile Court Referee.
Paul R., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, 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 order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to his son, C. We conclude his petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner is the alleged father of C., who was removed in October 2006 from the custody of his mother, Andrea, after C. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Andrea has a long history of drug abuse, which previously necessitated the removal of C.s three siblings from her custody and ultimately resulted in their placement for adoption.
The social services agency (agency) filed a dependency petition on C.s behalf, alleging Andreas drug use and history of neglect placed C. at risk of harm. ( 300, subds. (b) (failure to protect) & (j) (abuse of sibling)). The petition also alleged petitioner, who Andrea identified as C.s father, left C. without provision for support. ( 300, subd. (g).) The agency placed C. with a foster family trained to care for drug-exposed infants.
The juvenile court ordered C. detained and set the jurisdictional hearing for November 3. Petitioner appeared at that hearing and was taken into custody on a bench warrant for a domestic violence misdemeanor that occurred in 2002 and for driving under a suspended or revoked license. Andrea challenged the chain of custody on C.s urine sample taken at the hospital and the court set a contested jurisdictional hearing.
The contested jurisdictional hearing was continued several times and conducted on December 12. The court found the section 300, subdivision (b) allegations not true, dismissed the section 300, subdivision (g) allegation as to petitioner, sustained the petition on the section 300, subdivision (j) allegations and set a contested dispositional hearing.
In its dispositional report, the agency recommended the court deny Andrea reunification services based on her failure to reunify with C.s siblings and remediate her drug problem. ( 361.5, subds. (b)(10) & (b)(11).) The agency recommended the court offer petitioner reunification services if he elevated his paternity status to presumed father. The agency also provided a letter from C.s treating physician stating that C. was exhibiting signs of withdrawal from maternal drug use, such as difficulty feeding, tremors, fussiness and stiffness in the upper and lower extremities. The withdrawal symptoms were severe enough that the doctor prescribed methadone to decrease their severity and phenobarbitol for sedation.
On January 7, 2007, the court conducted the contested dispositional hearing. Petitioner and Andrea appeared through counsel. The court deemed petitioner C.s alleged father and denied him services and visitation. The court also denied Andrea reunification services as recommended and set a section 366.26 hearing for May 4, 2007. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not cite this court tothe appellate record or legal authority to support a claim of juvenile court error. Rather, he states that he wants custody of his son.
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.) While we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy, in this case, we conclude the petition is inadequate on its face. (Rule 8.452(a)(2).)
Even if this court construed the petition as raising a cognizable issue concerning custody, we would find no reason to reverse or modify the challenged juvenile court order. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994; Glen C. v. Superior Courtsupra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 580.) As an alleged father, petitioner has no legal rights to C. (In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1352.) In order to assert any paternal rights he may have, petitioner had the burden of establishing himself as C.s presumed or biological father. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 447-452; In re O.S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1410.) Since he failed to do so, the juvenile court properly denied him custody, reunification services and visitation. (In re O.S., supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 1410.)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
