Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review, Super. Ct. Nos. 09CEJ300250-1, 09CEJ300250-2, Jane Cardoza, Judge.
C.R., in pro. per., for petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kevin Briggs, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from respondent court’s orders issued at a contested six-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her children, A. and J. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In October 2009, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took petitioner’s then ten-year-old daughter, A., and newborn son, J., into protective custody after petitioner tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana at the time of J.’s birth. The department filed a dependency petition on behalf of both children alleging petitioner’s substance abuse and physically violent relationship with J.’s father, M.D., placed the children at a substantial risk of harm.
M.D. also filed a writ petition, which is currently pending before this court (F060937).
The juvenile court ordered the children detained and ordered the department to offer petitioner parenting classes, mental health, domestic violence and substance abuse assessments and any recommended treatment, and random drug testing. The department placed the children in separate foster homes.
During the months of October 2009 through January 2010, petitioner made half-hearted attempts to participate in services. She started parenting classes twice, but was dropped from the classes for nonattendance. She also missed several mental health appointments and was placed on a walk-in status. She completed a domestic violence assessment and was instructed to participate in anger management counseling. She also completed a substance abuse assessment and was instructed to schedule an intake appointment for intensive outpatient treatment. However, she was arrested in mid-January 2010 on a warrant for burglary. She was incarcerated for a week and released. She was arrested again in early February 2010 for a weapons charge and probation violation. She was released within the week.
In February 2010, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered petitioner to participate in the services already offered to her minus the mental health counseling. The court denied services for M.D. and A.’s father and set a six-month review hearing in August 2010 to assess petitioner’s progress.
From the day after the dispositional hearing, petitioner made no contact with the department until late June 2010 when she left a message stating she was in custody and asked the department to arrange her release into a substance abuse treatment program. The department informed petitioner it could not refer her for treatment until she was released, which at that time, was estimated to be in October 2010.
In its report for the six-month review hearing, the department informed the juvenile court that petitioner had not participated in any of her court-ordered services nor visited the children since February 2010. Petitioner’s failure to visit had taken an emotional toll on A. who was aware petitioner was able, but chose not to visit her. A. was complaining of frequent stomach aches, anxiety, and insomnia. Given petitioner’s noncompliance, the department recommended the court terminate reunification efforts and proceed to permanency planning. On the same date the department filed its six-month review, it also filed a section 388 petition asking the court to modify its prior order granting petitioner reunification services and order that they be terminated.
In September 2010, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review in combination with a contested hearing on the department’s section 388 petition. By this time, petitioner was out-of-custody and appeared at the hearing. She testified and acknowledged not completing her reunification services or visiting the children from February to June or July of 2010. She explained that she was trying to get her life back together and was depressed, overwhelmed, and angry about her situation.
Petitioner testified she was incarcerated twice in February 2010 for violating probation and was arrested on a warrant in late June for violating probation on a second degree burglary charge. She said she did not enter intensive outpatient treatment because she was incarcerated. She said she last used drugs in March or April of 2010 when she used marijuana and methamphetamine. She did not pursue anger management because the social worker did not follow up with her and she did not understand what she was supposed to do. While in jail, she signed up for Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings, parenting, healthy relationships, and Celebrate Recovery. She attended one NA meeting while in jail but failed to attend meetings after she was released in September.
Petitioner further testified she completed another substance abuse assessment and was approved for inpatient drug treatment if the court continued her services. She was on a waiting list for a parenting class and drug tested three times. The results of the first two tests were negative. She did not know the results of the most recent test. She said she was not sure the children could be returned to her custody in another six months because she did not know if they could reside with her in the drug treatment program. However, she believed she would be mentally prepared to take them back. She said she had a more positive outlook.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated petitioner’s reunifications services, granted the section 388 petition, and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends she could not complete her court-ordered services because of her emotional state and incarceration. However, she does not claim the juvenile court erred in rendering any of its findings and orders at the six-month review hearing. Consequently, we decline to review the petition in light of the following.
The premise of a petition for extraordinary writ is that the juvenile court erred in ruling at the hearing at which the section 366.26 hearing was set. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(b).) Petitioner identifies no error. Further, we do not conduct an independent review of dependency proceedings. (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.) Consequently, absent an assertion of error, we are compelled to dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for appellate review. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.