Filed 9/14/18 Patricia S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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. Brian M. Arax, Judge.

Patricia S., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

Petitioner Patricia S. (mother) in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452)[1] from the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services following a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1))[2] in June 2018 and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now 14-year-old daughter, Nadia. Mother asserts she is challenging “all allegations.” However, she fails to identify any grounds for juvenile court error. Consequently, we conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In March 2017, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (Department) obtained a protective warrant for then 13-year-old Nadia and placed her in foster care after mother ordered her released from the hospital against medical advice. Nadia suffers from a disorder in which the bone marrow does not produce a sufficient number of red blood cells. Failure to properly treat the disorder can result in long term consequences and death. Mother had a history of refusing to consent for medical treatment and failing to take Nadia to appointments.

The Department filed a dependency petition alleging mother placed Nadia at a substantial risk of harm by failing to provide her medical treatment. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Nadia, removed her from parental custody, ordered reunification services for mother and Nadia’s father and set a six-month review hearing for December 2017. Mother’s services plan required her to participate in a psychological evaluation. Mother did not appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional finding and dispositional orders.

Tamika London, PhD, evaluated mother in January 2018 and opined she demonstrated many features of narcissistic personality disorder. “That is, she presented as egocentric, manipulative, demanding, arrogant, grandiose, and as one with limited ability to empathize with the feelings of others. She demonstrated no insight into the impact of her decisions and behaviors on the physical, emotional and/or psychological well-being of her daughter.” In addition, mother believed her assessment of Nadia’s medical needs was superior to that of the medical professionals who refused to treat Nadia while in mother’s care. As a result, Nadia’s medical treatment was delayed. Mother took no responsibility for this, claiming the facilities and physicians were conspiring against her. Dr. London also expressed concerned about the influence mother had over Nadia. Mother convinced Nadia the physicians did not like mother, resulting in her removal. Dr. London did not believe mother could benefit from reunification services and resume custody of Nadia within the statutory timeframe.

In its report for the six-month review hearing, the Department recommended the juvenile court continue reunification services for mother but terminate services for Nadia’s father. Nadia did not want to build a relationship with him and he did not want to force her. The Department reported that Nadia did not like her foster home placement and was defiant. She had also begun to question the doctors’ treatment plan.

The juvenile court continued the six-month review hearing, combined it with the 12-month review hearing and conducted it as a contested hearing, beginning in April 2018. In the interim, the Department filed a status review recommending the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The Department advised the juvenile court that Nadia could not be safely returned to mother’s custody given her serious medical needs and mother’s unwillingness to take responsibility for her actions regarding Nadia’s care. The Department also opined there was not a substantial probability Nadia could be returned to mother’s care after an additional period of reunification because, although she regularly visited Nadia and was compliant with the court-ordered services, she remained confrontational and unwilling to change. She believed Nadia was wrongfully removed from her custody.

The juvenile court heard testimony from Nadia, the social worker and Dr. London and followed the Department’s recommendations.

Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition and appeared for oral argument.

DISCUSSION

As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Absent a showing of error, a reviewing court should not disturb them.

Rules 8.450-8.452 set forth guidelines pertaining to extraordinary writ petitions. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to conduct a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court’s orders and findings at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4).)

Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. It requires the petitioner to set forth legal arguments with citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with the dictate of rule 8.452(a)(1), the Court of Appeal should liberally construe writ petitions in favor of their adequacy, recognizing that a parent representing himself or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at a minimum articulate a claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Mother does not identify a specific legal error committed by the juvenile court in setting a section 366.26 hearing and, instead of providing a factual basis for her petition, merely states, “All allegations I am challenging.” Along with her petition, she submitted over 100 pages of printed e-mails and other documents, but failed to explain their relevance to her petition or how this court could consider them since they are not part of the appellate record.

Real party in interest urges this court to dismiss mother’s petition as facially inadequate because it does not comport with rule 8.452. We do have that discretion and will exercise it in this case. Since mother does not contend the juvenile court erred in setting the section 366.26 hearing, her petition is facially inadequate for review.

At oral argument, mother inferred there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s rulings from the inception of the case, including its decisions to remove Nadia from her custody and not return her at the review hearings. Once the case reaches the 12-month review hearing, as occurred here, the juvenile court has few options; it must either return the child to parental custody unless it finds returning the child would create a substantial risk to the child’s safety and well-being or set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).)[3] To the extent mother argued there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding it would be detrimental to return Nadia to her custody, we disagree. There was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to properly conclude that Nadia could not be returned at that time to mother’s custody without subjecting her to a substantial risk of detriment.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court’s opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).