Opinion
F086527
10-04-2023
J.N., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
J.N., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ Super. Ct. No. JJV073560B. Sylvia J. Hanna, Judge.
J.N., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
THE COURT[*]
J.N. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested six-month review hearing (Welf &Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for October 19, 2023, as to her now one-year-old daughter, J.G. (the child). Mother seeks a writ directing the juvenile court to return the child to her custody. We conclude mother's petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition.
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
These dependency proceedings were initiated in April 2022 when the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) received a referral shortly after mother gave birth to the child at home. Mother and father had previous child welfare history for the severe neglect of the child's sibling. On April 7, 2022, law enforcement executed a protective custody warrant and placed the child into protective custody with the agency. The child was observed to be listless and floppy, and an ambulance arrived to transport the child to the hospital. Hospital staff explained that the child was dehydrated, which could be observed when the child cried without producing tears. The child was admitted to the hospital for evaluation of her low heart rate, and she was transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit.
The agency filed an original petition alleging the child was described by section 300, subdivision (j). The petition alleged the child was at substantial risk of being neglected by mother and father in the same manner as her sibling. The detention report detailed mother and father's child welfare history. In August 2020, the sibling was admitted to the hospital after mother found him to be unresponsive at 10 months of age. The sibling was found to be severely malnourished, and he suffered a significant brain injury. The parents' failure to properly feed the sibling was determined as the likely cause of the sibling suffering from seizures and lack of oxygen to the brain. Family members reported that mother and father only fed the sibling blended fruits and refused to provide the recommended amount of formula. Mother and father also made the sibling participate in fasting, detoxing, and" 'hot yoga.' "
Dependency proceedings were initiated alleging the sibling was described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (e) based upon mother and father's deliberate malnourishment and deprivation of necessary medical treatment for the sibling. The allegations of the petition were sustained and both parents were denied family reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5) and (6). Mother and father's parental rights were subsequently terminated as to the sibling at a section 366.26 hearing in December 2021.
At the detention hearing held on April 8, 2022, mother and father were allowed to proceed in propria persona after declining appointment of counsel. The child was ordered detained from mother and father's custody, and a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing was set for April 28, 2022. The parents' rights to make medical decisions for the child were suspended by the juvenile court, and the agency was vested with the child's medical rights.
The report prepared for the jurisdiction hearing recommended the allegations in an amended petition be found true. The amended petition included additional allegations under section 300, subdivision (b)(1) that the child was at substantial risk of serious physical harm due to the parents' failure to provide adequate medical care. The agency also recommended that disposition be continued for the gathering of additional information and the paternal grandmother be authorized to make medical decisions for the child. The child was placed with the paternal grandmother and sibling.
After multiple continuances to address various motions by the parties, the juvenile court proceeded with the jurisdiction portion of the proceedings on September 8, 2022. The juvenile court found that the allegations in the amended petition were true and continued the disposition hearing to September 29, 2022. At the disposition hearing held on September 29, 2022, mother and father were present and continued to proceed in propria persona. After hearing argument from all of the parties, the juvenile court denied family reunification services to father and granted family reunification services to mother. A six-month review hearing was set for March 16, 2023.
In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services for mother. Mother participated in reunification services, but the agency was unable to observe any behavioral changes. Her reunification services plan consisted of therapy, a nutrition course, and a parenting program. The agency was concerned that mother maintained a relationship with father and lacked insight into the reasons for the child's removal. In March 2023, father was hospitalized for injuries that were the result of ongoing starvation. Mother assisted father during this fasting process and failed to address father's obvious medical needs. The agency felt mother's lack of awareness for father's physical health made it unlikely that she would be able to address the child's physical needs.
At a contested six-month review hearing held on June 13, 2023, and June 30, 2023, mother was present and represented by counsel. The juvenile court heard testimony from mother, mother's therapist, mother's adult son, and paternal grandmother. After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court followed the agency's recommendation to terminate reunification services based on its inability to find that there was a substantial probability that the child would be returned by the next review hearing. It had serious concerns about mother's progress based partly upon her demeanor during her testimony. The court found that mother's progress was minimal, terminated her family reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
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 mother did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court's findings and orders issued 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 citations to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with the dictate of rule 8.452(a)(1), we liberally construe writ petitions in favor of their adequacy recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least 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 we are not required to independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Here, mother's petition is inadequate in presenting a claim of error. She indicated on page 3 of the preprinted "Petition for Extraordinary Writ" (JV-825) form that she is requesting return of the child, but she does not provide any explanation as to why the order was erroneous or describe a factual basis for the petition.
Instead, she references an attached document entitled "Petition for High Prerogative Writ of Prohibition and High Prerogative Writ of Quo Warranto." The form of relief requested in that document includes: "a writ of prohibition of unlawful termination," "a writ of quo warranto," "an order to return private trust property and make petitioner whole again," "a special evidentiary hearing with the special clerk and master to present private, priority confidential evidence," "an order to seal said Suit to exclude the public and press to protect the nature of the rights and protections between the Parties during the proceedings," and "any other general equitable relief petitioner may be entitled to under the circumstances." Also attached to the petition is a letter from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and a certification of trust.
Nowhere in the petition or accompanying documentation does mother assert that the juvenile court erred in finding it would be detrimental to return the child to her custody. Nor does she challenge the findings underlying the court's order terminating reunification services. She does not, for example, contend the reunification services offered by the agency were not reasonable. Nor does she argue the court should have continued reunification services because there was a substantial probability the child could be returned to her custody after another period of reunification efforts.
We find mother's vague statements and legal terminology insufficient. Mother did not provide any context from which this court could construe an alleged error by citing to facts in the appellate record or any legal authority. Consequently, mother's writ petition is facially inadequate for appellate review. Further, as a reviewing court, we do not independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) Therefore, we dismiss the petition.
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). --------- Notes: [*] Before Franson, Acting P. J., Pena, J. and Meehan, J.