Opinion
F079733
11-06-2019
JAMES T., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
James T., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, Deputy County Counsel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. 17CEJ300381-4, 17CEJ300381-5)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian M. Arax, Judge. James T., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner James T. is the father of now two-year-old L.S. and one-year-old Alexa, the subjects of this extraordinary writ petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.) In July 2019, following a contested six- and 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subds. (e)(1) & (f)(1)), the juvenile court terminated James's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for the children. James, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ directing the court to place the children in his custody. James does not, however, assert the juvenile court erred. Consequently, we dismiss his petition as facially inadequate for review.
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Dependency proceedings were initiated in December 2017 after then three-month-old L.S. was evaluated in the emergency room for seizures. A brain scan revealed he had three separate brain bleeds indicative of deliberate, forceful shaking. His mother, Cynthia, admitted she had shaken him that morning. She claimed she shook L.S. because James caused her stress. She and James had a history of domestic violence and there was a restraining order protecting her from him. She could not, however, explain why L.S. had signs of previous bleeding of the brain.
The Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took L.S. and his three older half brothers into protective custody and placed them in foster care. The department also filed an original dependency petition (§ 300) on the children's behalf and listed James as L.S.'s presumed father. James requested custody of L.S.
In May 2018, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children, ordered Cynthia's three sons into her custody under family maintenance services and denied their fathers reunification services as their whereabouts were unknown. The court ordered L.S. placed with James under family maintenance services and ordered special enhancement services for Cynthia as to L.S.
In June 2018, Cynthia gave birth to Alexa. The department took Alexa into protective custody at the hospital and filed an original dependency petition on her behalf. Alexa was discharged from the hospital into foster care.
After many unsuccessful attempts to contact James at his reported residence in Fresno, the department removed L.S. from his custody in July 2018. The social workers found James living with L.S. in unsafe living conditions in a home in Coalinga that he was renovating. The department filed a supplemental petition (§ 387), alleging family maintenance services had not been successful in protecting L.S. The department placed L.S. and Alexa together in foster care. James also requested placement of Alexa.
In September 2018, the juvenile court sustained the original and supplemental petitions as to Alexa and L.S. and ordered Cynthia and James to participate in reunification services. James's services plan required him to complete a parenting class and mental health and domestic violence evaluations and submit to random drug testing.
The six-month review hearing was originally set for February 2019 but was continued and combined with the 12-month review hearing and conducted on July 30, 2019. By that time, James had completed a parenting class and a 52-week batterer's treatment class and was participating in mental health counseling. However, he took no responsibility for the domestic violence in his relationship with Cynthia. He regularly visited the children and had progressed to unsupervised visits. However, the children's foster parents expressed numerous concerns about the children's condition when they returned from visits. They were often hungry and screaming with soiled diapers. They gulped full bottles within minutes of being returned. They also required several hours to calm down after visits and L.S. had tantrums and tried to bite his foster parent. James also completed a psychological evaluation and was diagnosed with an unspecified personality disorder. The psychologist who evaluated him opined that, although he did not have a disabling mental disorder, his "prognosis for successful completion of reunification services as measured by demonstrated change is low at this time," given the nature of his personality traits.
Although the department credited James for participating in his services, it did not believe he made significant progress in resolving the problems that required the children's removal. He denied engaging in domestic violence and blamed Cynthia for L.S.'s removal, instead of acknowledging he placed L.S. in an unsafe home. He was also dishonest with the department and behaved at times in a bizarre and inappropriate manner. As an example, he was observed by his domestic violence group urinating outside the window after he arrived late and was not allowed to join the group.
In its report for the combined hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court not return L.S. and Alexa to parental custody and terminate reunification services. The children were adjusting well to their placement and bonding with each other. L.S. appeared to have made a full recovery from being shaken and Alexa was in overall good health with no medical concerns.
James appeared with his attorney at the contested hearing and asked the juvenile court to return the children to his custody with family maintenance services or order continued family reunification services. The court heard testimony from James and Cynthia, the children's foster father, and the facilitator for James's anger management course. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found the department provided the parents reasonable reunification services, but Cynthia's progress was minimal, and James's progress was minimal to moderate. The court found it would be detrimental to return the children to parental custody, terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for November 21, 2019.
In ruling, the juvenile court stated James's mental health issues, including his lack of self-control and unstable relationships, posed a continuing risk of detriment to the children. Despite many months of services, James was unable to satisfactorily address those risks.
DISCUSSION
James seeks an order from this court directing the juvenile court to return or grant custody of the children to him. He summarizes the pertinent facts by stating, "Grant custody of the children to Petitioner Father who has a stable job, house and car to provide to my children[.]"
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 petitioner did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ proceedings. 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).)
Aside from informing this court that he has a job, house and car and checking the box on the preprinted petition indicating his request for the return or custody of the children, James does not allege any grounds on which he claims the juvenile court erred, including the court's decisions not to return them to his custody or continue reunification efforts.
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 California Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).