Freddie V. v. Sup
Filed 2/9/06 Freddie V. v. Sup. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| FREDDIE V., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. |
F049155
(Super. Ct. No. 05CEJ300043-1)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. A. Dennis Caeton, Judge.
Freddie V., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and Howard K. Watkins, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner, in pro. per. seeks, an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38 (rule)) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1] We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 38.1(a) and (b). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner is the alleged father of A. who, at the age of 18 months, was removed from the custody of his mother Rachel in March 2005 because of her drug use and failure to provide basic necessities. At the time of A.'s removal, petitioner was an inmate in state prison. However, he was out-of-custody by the dispositional hearing conducted in July 2005 and appeared represented by counsel. The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction and ordered services for Rachel. However, the court denied petitioner reunification services because, as A.'s alleged father, he was not entitled to them.
Over the ensuing six months, Rachel failed to complete her court-ordered services and petitioner made no effort to elevate his paternity status beyond that of alleged father. Consequently, in its six-month status review of services to the court, the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) recommended the court terminate Rachel's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
On October 26, 2005, the juvenile court convened the six-month review hearing. Rachel did not appear and her whereabouts were unknown. Counsel for petitioner did not object to the department's recommendations but asked for visitation. The court adopted the department's recommendations and set a section 366.26 hearing for March 8, 2006.
DISCUSSION
We have before us the standard form approved for filing an extraordinary writ petition. However, it is blank for our purposes because petitioner did not assert any claim of juvenile court error, summarize the factual bases for the petition or set forth a legal argument in support of the petition. As such, the petition fails to comport with the minimal content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition contained in rule 38.1(a) and (b). Consequently, it is inadequate for our review and we must dismiss it.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication courtesy of San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyer ( www.mcmillanlaw.us ) and San Diego Lawyers Directory ( www.fearnotlaw.com )
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Wiseman, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
