Ryan C. v. Superior Court
Filed 10/6/06 Ryan C. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| RYAN C., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent, STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest. |
F050985
(Super. Ct. Nos. JUV509166 & JUV509167)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.
Ryan C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Linda S. Macy, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38-38.1) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his daughters M. and L. We will deny the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
The instant dependency proceedings were initiated in Santa Clara County in May 2004 when then six-year-old M. and five-year-old L. were removed from the custody of their mother Kimberly who hit M. with a wire hanger over 100 times on the buttocks, causing bruising. She also hit M. in the face, leaving a mark in the shape of a hanger.
The Santa Clara County juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over the children, provided Kimberly family reunification services and placed the children in petitioner’s custody under a plan of family maintenance, which required him to maintain suitable housing, complete a parenting class and participate in individual counseling with the children. In January 2005, after petitioner failed to satisfy the terms of his family maintenance plan, the department removed the children from his custody and placed them with relatives.
In December 2005, the juvenile court conducted a contested 18-month review hearing and terminated Kimberly’s reunification services. In March 2006, the court conducted petitioner’s 12-month review hearing and added drug testing and a substance abuse evaluation to his service plan. The court also continued services to the 18-month review hearing set for July 2006 and ordered the case transferred to Stanislaus County.
In mid-May 2006, petitioner was caught shoplifting. He had a knife, an explosive device and a hypodermic needle in his possession. He admitted being under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of his crime. Later that month, the Stanislaus County juvenile court (juvenile court) accepted the case in transfer, adjudged the children dependents of the court and set the 18-month review for July 28.
In late June, petitioner was admitted to a drug treatment program but left against medical advice less than two weeks later. In its 18-month status review, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) recommended the court terminate petitioner’s services and set a permanent plan of relative adoption.
On July 28, 2006, the juvenile court conducted the 18-month review hearing. Petitioner appeared through counsel and objected to the agency’s recommendation but offered no evidence or argument. After the parties submitted the matter, the juvenile court terminated petitioner’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for November 6, 2006. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner informs this court in his writ petition that he is scheduled to be released from custody on September 5, 2006, and asks for a stay of the proceedings until October 23, 2006. He also asks this court, without any legal argument or authority, to order the juvenile court to continue his reunification services. We decline to grant either of his requests.
A stay of the section 366.26 hearing requires good cause, which is not present in this case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1(g) (rule).) Moreover, there are no legal grounds on which to extend services to petitioner beyond the statutory limitation of 18 months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3).) Petitioner was provided a reasonable plan for reunification, which he failed to complete, and there is no evidence his daughters’ best interest would be served by another six months of services. (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 167.) Accordingly, we find no error.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. 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 Lawyers.
*Before Harris, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Dawson, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
