Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 515653
Maria Elena Ramos, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
OPINION
Before Dawson, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his daughter Paula. We conclude his 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
Paula came to the attention of the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) in December 2009 at the age of 10 when she accompanied petitioner to visit Rita, the mother of petitioner’s newborn son, Xavier, at the hospital. Rita used heroin throughout her pregnancy with Xavier and both tested positive for opiates. A social worker spoke with Rita and petitioner at the hospital. Petitioner stated he used heroin two to three times a week for the previous five years. He said Paula’s mother, Andrea, died several years before as a result of medical complications related to her heroin use.
Petitioner also told the social worker that Paula was developmentally delayed, had a speech impediment and was hyperactive. He said she had not been to school since August 2009 and had not been to the doctor in a year. It was subsequently discovered that Paula has epilepsy and takes seizure medication.
The agency detained Xavier at the hospital but took no action as to Paula until petitioner absconded with her. At the end of December 2009, she was taken into protective custody and detained. On January 20, 2010, petitioner and Rita were arrested. Petitioner was released shortly after on bail.
In February 2010, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Paula and ordered petitioner to complete a parenting program, domestic violence and substance abuse assessments and submit to random drug testing. The agency placed Paula with a maternal relative and Xavier with a family friend of petitioner’s.
The court also ordered petitioner reunification services as to Xavier but denied reunification services for Rita.
By the six-month review of services, petitioner had not engaged in any of his services. In mid-May 2010, petitioner checked into a drug treatment facility (facility) but was allowed to leave because there was not a doctor available to assist him with detoxification. He then was admitted to a hospital for a medical problem. At the end of May, petitioner missed an appointment to be assessed for readmission to the facility. On June 1, the social worker instructed him, by letter, to contact the facility daily for bed availability. Petitioner received the letter but did not contact the facility and continued to use heroin.
In July 2010, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court continued petitioner’s reunification services as to Paula to the 12-month review hearing which it set for January 2011. The court found that petitioner’s progress had been poor.
The court terminated petitioner’s reunification services as to Xavier and set a section 366.26 hearing. Petitioner did not file a writ petition challenging the juvenile court’s orders as to Xavier.
In its report for the 12-month review hearing, the agency reported that petitioner was incarcerated and, according to petitioner, was due to be released from custody in May 2011. Given his poor prior progress and incarceration, the agency recommended the court terminate his services as to Paula at the 12-month review hearing.
The 12-month review hearing was continued and conducted in February 2011 as a contested hearing. County counsel informed the court that the plan for Paula was adoption by her caregiver. Petitioner testified that he was taken into custody in early September 2010 and was transferred to state prison approximately a month later. In mid-December 2010, he was transferred to another state prison where he was an inmate at the time of the 12-month review hearing. He said there were no services available to him at the jail where he was first incarcerated or at either of the state prisons. He said he was incarcerated for petty theft and expected to be released from custody in May 2011. Since his incarceration, he wrote to Paula every week and wanted the court to continue his services. He planned to enter treatment as soon as he was released from prison. Petitioner further testified that he was out of custody from December 2009 until September 2010 except for his brief incarceration in January 2010. He also testified that he had used heroin in excess of 17 years and had never been able to remain drug-free when out of custody. He acknowledged that he received treatment in 1999 and 2007 and continued to use heroin. Asked why he did not attempt to attain sobriety between December 2009 and September 2010, petitioner was unable to provide an adequate explanation.
Social worker Nancy Griggs testified that the only inquiry she made regarding the availability of reunification services for petitioner was in January 2011 to the prison where petitioner was then housed. She was told that Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings and Celebrate Recovery were available through a chaplain. Ms. Briggs spoke to an officer who said she would speak to the chaplain about petitioner. The officer subsequently sent Ms. Briggs an e-mail confirming that she spoke to the sponsor for the AA/NA and Celebrate Recovery programs. Ms. Briggs was also informed that the counselor interviewed petitioner and he requested dates and times for the meetings.
Petitioner testified on rebuttal that he was not aware that there was a Celebrate Recovery Program at the prison. He denied that the sponsor spoke to him. He said he talked to his counselor approximately a week before the hearing and asked for a letter stating there were no classes available but she declined to give him one for legal reasons. He said this was the first time he inquired about services.
During argument, petitioner’s attorney asked the juvenile court to consider that petitioner’s incarceration barred him from participating in reunification services and requested that the court continue his services to the 18-month review hearing. The court declined to do so, noting that petitioner did not participate in his services for the nine months prior to his incarceration. In addition, the court found there was not a substantial probability Paula could be returned to his custody by the 18-month review hearing which, if held, would be conducted in late June 2011. Accordingly, the court terminated petitioner’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not contend the juvenile court erred in terminating his reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Rather, he states that he was unaware that the programs about which Ms. Briggs testified were available to him. He seeks reinstatement of his reunification services and state-funded drug rehabilitation. For the reasons set forth below, we cannot grant relief.
California Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452 (rule) govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court and filing the appropriate documentation. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a).) In the absence of a claim of error, this court will not independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Consequently, since petitioner does not raise juvenile court error, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final as to this court.