R.L. v. Superior Court
Filed 7/16/07 R.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
R. L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party In Interest. | F052749 (Super. Ct. No. 03CEJ300030-5) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.
R. L., 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) to vacate the dispositional orders of the juvenile court denying reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his alleged daughter, R. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
At a contested dispositional hearing in April 2007, the juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over then six-month-old R. because of her mother, Lizas, drug use and denied Liza reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11).[2] The court also denied petitioner reunification services because, even though he submitted documentation to elevate his paternity status, he was still R.s alleged father at the time of the hearing. Consequently, he was not entitled to reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (a). The juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan for R. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioners claim of juvenile court error is actually a request that Liza receive reunification services. To the extent petitioner claims the court erred in denying Liza reunification services, petitioner lacks standing to raise the issue on her behalf because he fails to establish how he was aggrieved by the courts denial order. (In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703.) Moreover, even if petitioner had standing to raise the issue, we would deny writ relief because we affirmed the juvenile courts order denying Liza reunification services (F052750) and our affirmance precludes relitigation of the same issue under the law of the case doctrine. (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 894.) Consequently, we will deny the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
*Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Liza challenged the juvenile courts order denying her reunification services by writ petition, which this court denied (F052750).
