Filed 9/5/18 Amber D. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Frank Dougherty, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Stanislaus Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.).

Amber D., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner Amber D. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her reunification services at a six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1))[1] as to her now 11-month-old daughter, E.D., and setting a section 366.26 hearing on September 27, 2018. Mother informs this court she has been in custody and needs more time to complete her court-ordered reunification services. We conclude she failed to assert juvenile court error as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.452,[2] which sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. Consequently, we dismiss the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2017, while incarcerated, mother gave birth to E.D. Though she and E.D. tested negative for drugs, E.D. was diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome. Mother admitted daily use of methamphetamine and malt liquor during most of her pregnancy and recreational use of heroin (once a month). She had never participated in drug treatment.

E.D.’s father, Jonathan, also admitted methamphetamine and heroin use around the time of E.D.’s birth. He lived homeless with mother for a portion of her pregnancy when he was not incarcerated. Both parents had an extensive criminal history.

The Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) took E.D. into protective custody and filed a dependency petition on her behalf. The agency placed E.D. with a paternal cousin.

On September 22, 2017, the parents appeared for the detention hearing and were appointed counsel. E.D. was ordered detained and the agency provided the parents referrals for services, including a substance abuse assessment and random drug testing. Jonathan indicated that he had Cherokee and Iroquois Indian heritage.

In November 2017, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction, ordered E.D. removed from parental custody and ordered reunification services for both parents. Mother’s reunification plan required her to participate in individual counseling, complete a parenting program, a substance abuse assessment, and submit to random drug testing.

At an interim review hearing in February 2018, the agency reported that mother entered residential drug treatment at Nirvana Women of Hope on February 8, 2018. Upon admission, she tested positive for opiates, methamphetamine, and “MDMA,” and admitted drinking alcohol that day. On March 7, mother left treatment and according to a pact she and Jonathan made, he left Stanislaus Recovery Center where he was residing in sober living. From March 9 to March 19, 2018, mother was incarcerated for vehicle theft.

The juvenile court admonished mother about her poor progress at the interim review hearing and confirmed the six-month review hearing, which was set for May 2018. By that time, the Cherokee Nation had determined that E.D. was an Indian child and the Cherokee Nation representative participated in the hearing.

The agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services for mother and Jonathan at the six-month review hearing. They were not participating in any of their court-ordered services and failed to visit E.D., resulting in their removal from the visitation schedule. Since the interim hearing, they were both detained, mother in May for taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent.

On May 21, 2018, the Cherokee Nation filed a “Notice of Intervention.” The Cherokee Nation concurred with E.D.’s placement with her paternal cousin, who was a registered member of the Cherokee Nation.

The juvenile court continued the six-month review hearing and conducted it in June 2018. Neither parent appeared. Neither counsel for the parents, the agency, nor the paternal cousin knew the parents’ whereabouts. The parents’ attorneys objected to the recommendation without presenting any evidence.

The juvenile court found the parents’ whereabouts were unknown and their absence was willful. The court terminated reunification services, stating “the parents have made no progress whatsoever in complying with the case plan” and set a section 366.26 hearing.

DISCUSSION

Mother does not assert the juvenile court’s order setting a section 366.26 hearing was error. Instead, she states she was in booking on the date of the six-month review hearing and remains incarcerated. She asks for additional time to complete her court-ordered services.

As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) 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, which sets forth the content requirements for a writ petition, required mother to identify the error(s) she believes the juvenile court made. (Rule 8.452(a) & (b).) When the petitioner does not allege legal error, as occurred here, there is nothing for this court to review. Consequently, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

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).