Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County Santa Barbara James E. Herman, Judge, Santa Barbara Super. Ct. No. J1252336.
Arthur M. P., in pro per, Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, County of Santa Barbara; Toni Lorien, Deputy, for Real Party in Interest.
YEGAN, J.
A.P., petitioner and father of A.P. III, seeks extraordinary writ review of a March 9, 2009 juvenile court order setting a permanent placement hearing for the minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Facts and Procedural History
On November 21, 2007, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) detained the minor after receiving a call that minor's parents were in jail and minor did not have a caretaker. Minor's mother, C.S., had been incarcerated since April 2007 and left minor with petitioner. Petitioner was arrested in June 2007 and left the minor with petitioner's girlfriend. The girlfriend was arrested November 19, 2007 and left the minor, age four, without a caretaker.
CWS filed a dependency petition for failure to protect and support the minor. (§ 300, subds. (b) & (g).) On November 28, 2007, the trial court found the minor to be a person described by section 300, found petitioner to be the alleged father, and set a December 27, 2007 jurisdiction hearing.
Before the jurisdiction hearing, CWS attempted to contact petitioner at the California Institution for Men at Chino and sent a letter to petitioner. Petitioner did not respond or appear at the December 27, 2007 jurisdiction hearing. The trial court sustained the petition, placed the minor in foster care, and found that petitioner was the presumed father of minor.
On February 4, 2008, the trial court appointed counsel for petitioner and continued the disposition hearing to February 11, 2008.
In a disposition report, CWS advised the trial court that petitioner was still in prison and that his release date was December 2010. CWS recommended that minor be declared a dependent of the court, that mother participate in reunification services, and that petitioner not be offered reunification services. (§ 361.5, sub. (e)(1).)
Counsel for petitioner submitted a declaration stating that petitioner's earliest prison release date was well beyond the statutory time for reunification, that petitioner was submitting on CWS's recommendation that no reunification services be offered, and that petitioner did not wish to be present at proceedings involving the minor.
At the February 11, 2008 disposition hearing, the trial court accepted the recommendations of CWS, ordered reunification services for mother, and ordered that no reunification services be provided petitioner.
The trial court found that: (1) petitioner could not reunify with minor within the statutory time frame, (2) that visitation would not be in the minor's best interest, (3) that minor would have to travel at least seven hours to visit petitioner in prison, causing the minor discomfort and possible mental anxiety, (4) that the services available would not be helpful in creating and sustaining a parent/child relationship, and (5) there would be no detriment to the minor if reunification services were not offered petitioner.
Petitioner was represented by counsel at all times, did not attend any other court proceeding, and did not file a section 388 petition to modify the disposition order.
On March 9, 2009, at the 12 month review hearing, the trial court terminated mother's reunification services and set the matter for a June 22, 2009 section 366.26 hearing.
Petitioner filed a pro per writ petition on April 2, 2009, requesting that this court vacate the section 366.26 hearing, order reunifications services, and order visitation..
Discussion
A trial court may order that reunifications services be provided for one parent but not the other, as was done here. (See In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59.) After the minor was detained, petitioner declined reunification services, submitted on the CWS recommendation not to offer reunification services, and stated that he would not attend court hearings. "[A] parent waives his or her right to challenge a juvenile court's order when the parent submits the matter on the social worker's recommendation. [Citation.]" (In re Ricardo L. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 552, 565, citing In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 589.)
Petitioner had 60 days to appeal from the February 11, 2008 disposition order denying reunification services. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.400(d)(1); In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 47.) Because petitioner did not seek appellate review or file a section 388 petition to modify the February 11, 2008 order, petitioner is barred from challenging the disposition order at this late a date. (Ibid.)
CWS argues that the writ petition should be denied because it lacks a memorandum of points and authorities and supporting documents. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.452(a)(3).) We agree. (See e.g., Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157-158 [facially inadequate petition summarily denied].)
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 requires that the petition include memorandum providing "a summary of the significant facts" with supporting citations to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(b)(1).) The memorandum "must, at a minimum, adequately inform the court of the issues presented, point out the factual support for them in the record, and offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues." (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.)
Petitioner has not provided a memorandum of points and authorities or "offer[ed] argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues." (Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 583 ; Cresse S. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 947, 955.-956.)
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
We concur, GILBERT, P. J., COFFEE, J.