Filed 1/5/18 A.S. v. Superior Court CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

A.S.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KINGS COUNTY,

Respondent;

KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

F076342

(Super. Ct. No. 17JD0105)


OPINION

THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge.
A.S., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Risé A. Donlon, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
A.S. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order issued in September 2017, setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her now four-year-old son, Anthony. The September 2017, hearing was a dispositional hearing at which the court denied mother reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) because of her lengthy prison sentence. We conclude mother failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss her petition as facially inadequate for review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.)
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In May 2017, mother was arrested on drug charges. She left then three-year-old Anthony in the care of his maternal grandmother. However, the grandmother was a methamphetamine user, which she disclosed to the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency). In June, the agency removed Anthony from his grandmother and placed him in foster care.
In September 2017, the juvenile court conducted an uncontested dispositional hearing. Mother was in state prison, serving a two-year sentence. She waived her personal appearance but was represented by trial counsel, who informed the court that she did not object to the agency’s recommendation to deny her services, but asked that Anthony be released to the custody of her parents. The court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Anthony and denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1). The court set a section 366.26 hearing for January 9, 2018. The court also set a hearing, currently scheduled for January 9, 2018, to assess the biological father for reunification services.


DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, absent a showing of error, this court will not disturb them.
A parent seeking review of the juvenile court’s orders from the setting hearing must, as mother did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 (Petition for Extraordinary Writ) to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow this court to review the juvenile court’s orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs.
Rule 8.452 requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).)
Mother filed a JV-825, identifying Anthony as the subject of her petition and providing basic identifying information, such as the juvenile court case number and the date of the court’s ruling. However, in item number six, which requires the petitioner to identify the grounds on which the juvenile court erred, she merely wrote the words “permanent placement.” Otherwise, her petition is blank and thus, inadequate for review.
Since mother fails to set forth a claim of error and since we do not independently review the appellate record for possible error (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994), we dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.