Valerie P. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 10/16/07 Valerie P. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
VALERIE P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. | F053413 (Super. Ct. No. JJV059910A, B) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
Valerie P., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel and Konstantine A. Demiris, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
____________________
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Harris, J., and Cornell, J.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450/8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court issued at a post-permanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.3)[1]setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her daughters A. and S. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In September 2005, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction over petitioners three daughters, then two-year-old A., one-year-old S., and one-month-old A.A., after sustaining allegations petitioners drug use placed the children at risk of harm. !(CT 1, 3, 105)! At the time, the childrens father was incarcerated. !(CT 71, 119 )!
Early in the proceedings, the juvenile court determined the Indian Child Welfare Act[2](ICWA) applied to the children based on petitioners membership in a federally recognized American Indian tribe (Tribe). !(CT 25)! Consequently, the social services agency (agency) placed A. A. in an ICWA relative foster home but was unable to do the same for A. and S. who were placed together in a licensed foster home. !(CT 296)!
At the dispositional hearing in September 2005, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from petitioners custody and ordered six months of services for petitioner and the childrens father. !(CT 94, 137, 175)! Petitioner did not appeal from the courts dispositional orders.
Over the next six months, petitioner failed to regularly visit the children or participate in services and the childrens father remained incarcerated awaiting trial. !(CT 175-176)! Meanwhile, the children were doing well in foster care and were determined to be adoptable. !(CT 175-176)! Consequently, the agency recommended the court terminate services at the six-month review hearing and schedule a permanency planning hearing ( 366.26). !(CT 176)!
At a contested six-month review hearing in April 2006, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 2006. !(CT 279, 285)! The court also reduced petitioners supervised visitation from weekly to once monthly. !(CT 41, 286)! Petitioner did not challenge the juvenile courts visitation or setting orders by writ petition.
In August 2006, the juvenile court selected a permanent plan of adoption for A.A. and continued the 366.26 hearing for A. and S. to January 2007 so the agency could continue its search for adoptive parents who were either relatives and/or ICWA approved. !(CT 308, 353-354)!
On January 2007, the juvenile court conducted a contested 366.26 hearing as to A. and S. and ordered the girls into a planned permanent living arrangement with relative caregivers with a goal of adoption. !(CT 456)! The court also granted the Tribes motion to intervene and set a post-permanency plan review hearing for July 2007. !(CT 456)!
The following May, the agency placed A. and S. with an ICWA approved family that wanted to adopt them. !(CT 485)! Consequently, at the July 2007 review hearing, the court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption. !(CT 480, 510)! The court did not order any change in visitation. !(CT 493, 501, 507, 510)! This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not specify in her petition how the juvenile court erred in any of its findings or orders with respect to A. and S. She merely checked the boxes on the preprinted petition form (JV-825) requesting continued reunification services, visitation, and custody. Since the court did not discontinue visitation at the July 2007 hearing, we assume petitioner is requesting more frequent visitation.
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, petitioners failure to allege any court error causes this court to conclude the petition is inadequate on its face. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).) On that basis, we will dismiss the petition.
However, even if we were to construe the petition as challenging the courts custody, termination of services and visitation orders, we would still dismiss the petition for failure to seek timely appellate review. Since the order removing A. and S. from petitioners custody was made at the dispositional hearing in September 2005, petitioner waived her right to review by failing to directly appeal from the dispositional order. (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811.) Petitioner also waived her right to review of the courts orders terminating reunification services and reducing visitation by failing to file a writ petition from the courts April 2006 order setting a section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a); 366.26, subd. (l)(1)(A) & (l)(2).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.
