Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Super. Ct. Nos. JJV058224D & JJV058224E, Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
L.V., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Poochigian, J.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from respondent court’s orders terminating her legal guardianship and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her great-nephews, R.R. and R.M. 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
Petitioner is the paternal great-aunt and legal guardian of R.R. and R.M. (the boys) who, in 2004 at the ages of six and four years respectively, were removed, along with their three older brothers, from the custody of their parents. In 2005, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for their parents and placed the boys in long-term foster care. In 2007, the juvenile court terminated the boys’ parents’ parental rights and, in 2008, appointed petitioner as their legal guardian.
Over the course of the ensuing year, guardianship remained the most appropriate plan for the boys and adoption was even considered. However, the boys made inconsistent statements about whether they wanted to be adopted by petitioner and the service providers reported that petitioner was uncooperative and they questioned her parenting skills. In addition, the social services agency received four referrals from July 2008 to June 2009 that petitioner verbally abused the boys and did not sufficiently supervise them.
In November 2009, the boys’ attorney filed a section 388 petition stating petitioner’s treatment of them subjected them to significant emotional abuse and asking the juvenile court to terminate the guardianship and remove the boys from petitioner’s custody. In February 2010, following a contested hearing on the section 388 petition, the juvenile court terminated the guardianship and removed the boys from petitioner’s custody. At a subsequent hearing that same month, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a new permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks return of the boys to her custody. She contends it was unnecessary to remove them and terminate the guardianship. She also contends the boys did not desire to be removed from her custody.
A lower court’s judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Consequently, an “appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error by an adequate record.” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) With respect to writ petitions challenging the setting of a section 366.26 hearing, rule 8.452 specifies, inter alia, that the writ petition must include a summary of the significant facts and identify contested legal points with citation to legal authority and argument. (Rule 8.452(b).) At a minimum, the writ petition must “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.)
Aside from her assertion that the juvenile court’s orders terminating the guardianship and removing the boys was unnecessary, petitioner does not establish how the juvenile court erred in rendering those orders. Consequently, its orders are presumed correct and her petition warrants dismissal.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.