Opinion
F076198
11-30-2017
CHARLES E., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MADERA COUNTY, Respondent; MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Charles E., pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. MJP017792)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Thomas L. Bender, Judge. Charles E., pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Charles E. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court's order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his now 13-year-old son, Isaiah. Father objects to the termination of his parental rights. We conclude father failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss his petition as facially inadequate for review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.)
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court. --------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In July 2016, then 11-year-old Isaiah was removed from the custody of his mother, Deborah, after a family member reported that she stopped taking her psychotropic medication and was having auditory and visual hallucinations. The maternal grandparents stated Deborah was unable to identify her own children on several occasions. Isaiah stated she talked about death a lot and about people trying to stab her. At the time, father was an inmate in state prison, serving a lengthy prison sentence.
The Madera County Department of Social Services (department) placed Isaiah with his maternal grandmother and filed a dependency petition on his behalf.
The juvenile court adjudged Isaiah a dependent child, removed him from Deborah's custody and ordered reunification services for her only. The court ordered Deborah to undergo a psychological evaluation.
Deborah was diagnosed with a mental disorder that rendered her incapable of safely parenting Isaiah. Of particular concern was her preoccupation with demonic possession and her perception of Isaiah as the devil, which placed Isaiah at a high risk of being assaulted. Deborah stated she was unwilling to participate in mental health counseling or take psychotropic medication even if necessary to reunify with Isaiah. The juvenile court did not authorize a second psychological evaluation.
The department recommended the juvenile court terminate Deborah's reunification services at the six-month review hearing because she had not participated in any of her court-ordered services. In addition, Isaiah and his maternal grandparents agreed that a legal guardianship was the best plan for him.
In July 2017, the department filed a modification petition under section 388 (section 388 petition), asking the juvenile court to terminate Deborah's reunification services given her mental disorder and failure to participate in her services plan or meet with the social workers.
On August 8, 2017, the juvenile court conducted a contested six-month review hearing combined with a contested hearing on the department's section 388 petition. Deborah did not personally appear and her attorney stated she had not contacted him. Father declined to be transported and his attorney submitted on the department's report. The court granted the section 388 petition, terminated Deborah's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for December 5, 2017.
DISCUSSION
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 father did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow this court to review the juvenile court's orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs.
Rule 8.452 requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).)
Father does not claim the juvenile court erred in ruling as it did. Rather, he simply objects to the termination of his parental rights. However, his objection is premature. Termination of parental rights is one of several options available to the juvenile court at the section 366.26 hearing, which has yet to occur. Father may request to appear at that hearing and express his objection at that time. In his case, however, it appears that legal guardianship rather than adoption is the recommended permanent plan for Isaiah. If the court selects legal guardianship for Isaiah, father's parental rights will not be terminated.
With respect to the writ proceeding before us, father has not alleged the juvenile court erred at the setting hearing on August 8, 2017. Consequently, there is nothing for this court to 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).