Filed 5/7/18 M.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

M.R.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY,

Respondent;

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

F076954

(Super. Ct. No. JJV069333A-B)


OPINION
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Hugo J. Loza, Judge.
M.R., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner M.R. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order issued at a postpermanent plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3) setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now 15- and 13-year-old daughters (the children). Mother contends her sister and brother-in-law lied to gain legal guardianship of the children and asks for an order granting her reunification services. We conclude mother’s petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Dependency proceedings were initiated in October 2015 when the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) removed the children, then 13 and 10 years old, from mother’s custody because of the deplorable conditions of the home and placed them in foster care. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered mother to participate in reunification services. The court denied the children’s father reunification services.
The juvenile court provided mother reunification services up to the 12-month review hearing, which it conducted in November 2016. In its report for the hearing, the agency recommended the court terminate mother’s services because, although she had partially complied, she was unwilling to protect the children from her boyfriend, Tony, who was a registered sex offender. The court adopted the agency’s recommendation and set a section 366.26 hearing for February 2017. In December 2016, the agency placed the children with mother’s sister and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. G., who wished to pursue legal guardianship.
In February 2017, following an uncontested section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children into long-term foster care with Mr. and Mrs. G. with a goal of legal guardianship.
The children did well with their foster parents and the juvenile court continued them in their care. Mother, however, maintained her association with Tony and intended to reunite him with the children if they were returned to her custody.
In January 2018, the agency filed its report for the postpermanent plan review hearing (review hearing) scheduled that month and recommended the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider legal guardianship for the children with Mr. and Mrs. G.
Mother and the children appeared with counsel at the review hearing. Mother’s attorney informed the juvenile court that mother had been working since June 2017 and explained why she left early from some of the visits. She also expressed concern about Mr. G.’s son who was living in the home and the unsanitary condition of the home. She believed the social worker was working against her by telling Mr. and Mrs. G. statements she told the social worker in confidence. Mother also claimed she was not being informed of the children’s appointments. She asked the court to place the children with her and order reunification services. Minors’ counsel told the court the children were happy where they were and wanted to remain there. The children confirmed they wanted the court to set a hearing to determine whether a legal guardianship was in their best interest.
The juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing for May 17, 2018.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends she did everything the juvenile court asked of her and her social worker assisted Mr. and Mrs. G. in their efforts to assume a legal guardianship instead of helping her reunify with the children. She also claims Mr. and Mrs. G. lied to further their cause.
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 the reviewing court. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow the reviewing court to review the juvenile court’s orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs. Rule 8.452 requires mother to identify the error(s) she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires mother to support each error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).)
When the juvenile court orders a child into foster care at a section 366.26 hearing, as it did here, it must review the child’s permanent plan every six months to determine whether the plan is still appropriate. (§§ 366.26, subd. (b)(6) & (7), 366.3, subd. (d).) If it appears the child is suitable for a more permanent plan such as a legal guardianship, the court must set a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.3, subd. (h)(1).)
Here, by the review hearing in January 2018, Mr. and Mrs. G., the children’s foster parents, had decided to seek a legal guardianship. Consequently, the juvenile court had no choice but to set a section 366.26 hearing to determine whether legal guardianship was a more appropriate permanent plan. Since mother does not contend the court erred in setting the hearing, her petition is facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).