S.H. v. Superior Court
Filed 6/22/07 S.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
S. H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. | F052632 (Super. Ct. No. 06CEJ300048-1) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.
S. H., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy 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 (rule)) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1]as to her children M. and K. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural and content requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In April 2006, petitioner heated up a cup of soup while under the influence of methamphetamine and set it within reach of then 14-month-old M. M. picked up the cup of soup and spilled its contents resulting in scalding burns on his right ear, neck, shoulder and forearm. M. was treated for his burns and he and his sister, then five-month-old K., were taken into protective custody by the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department). Petitioner was arrested for child endangerment, being under the influence of and in possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. The childrens father, M.V., was incarcerated in state prison.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained pursuant to a dependency petition and the department placed them in foster care. At the jurisdictional hearing in June 2006, the court adjudged the children dependents of the court and set the dispositional hearing for July 25, 2006. Meanwhile, petitioner entered a 12-month residential drug treatment program, where she initially did well. However, she was discharged from the program after she had to be involuntarily committed. She subsequently enrolled in a dual-diagnosis program but was discharged because of numerous missed appointments. She was then referred to a comprehensive addiction program which offered a broad range of services in addition to substance abuse treatment. However, she discharged herself from the program after only one day.
The dispositional hearing was continued several times and conducted in October 2006. The court ordered reunification services for petitioner and M.V. However, after six months elapsed and neither parent made more than minimal progress in their case plans, the department recommended the court terminate their services at the six-month review hearing and set a section 366.26 hearing.
M.V. contested the departments recommendation and a contested hearing was conducted on March 20, 2007. Petitioner appeared in custody and submitted on the departments reports. At her attorneys request, the court continued weekly supervised visitation, terminated services for both parents as recommended and set the section 366.26 hearing for July 17, 2007. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not claim the juvenile court erred in any of its rulings issued at the March 2007 setting hearing. Rather, she merely asks for another chance to reunify with her children. Rule 8.450-8.452 provides an expeditious means by which a petitioning parent can obtain appellate review of an alleged juvenile court error committed at the setting hearing. However, in the absence of alleged error, this court cannot conduct a meaningful review nor will we review the record for potential errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Consequently, we must dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Levy, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
