Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Stephen Marpet, Referee. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK77025
Raymond H., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens Assistant County Counsel, Tracey F. Dodds, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
CROSKEY, Acting P. J.
Raymond H., appearing in propria persona, seeks writ review of an order denying mother additional family reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 as to R.H. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Raymond H. also requests a stay of the proceedings to allow him to obtain a copy of the relevant record and to file a proper writ petition.
Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The Department has filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that Raymond H. lacks standing to raise issues on behalf of mother.
We deny Raymond H.’s request for a stay and dismiss the petition because the writ petition filed by Raymond H. does not comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Additionally, even if the irregularities in Raymond H.’s petition are overlooked, he lacks standing to challenge the denial of family reunification services to mother and he cannot, at this juncture, assert error based on the juvenile court’s order entered in June of 2009 denying him family reunification services.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
1. The proceedings in the juvenile court.
On March 26, 2009, the Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received information indicating 22-month old R.H. was at risk of neglect in mother’s care based on domestic violence and mother’s drug use. Mother admitted she and the child’s father, Raymond H., had a long history of domestic violence, including a recent incident during which mother attempted to break into Raymond H.’s home, but denied use of any drugs other than marijuana. However, mother tested positive for cocaine and, on April 23, 2009, the Department detained R.H. and filed a dependency petition.
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found Raymond H. was R.H.’s “biological, alleged father” and ordered the child placed in foster care.
At the jurisdictional hearing on June 23, 2009, Raymond H. was in jail awaiting trial on felony charges. Mother submitted to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. As sustained, the petition alleged mother’s current use of cocaine and marijuana periodically interfered with her ability to provide appropriate care and supervision, and mother and Raymond H. have a history of domestic violence including, but not limited to, Raymond H. beating mother causing swelling and bruising to mother’s face and mother breaking windows at Raymond H.’s home when R.H. was in the home.
The juvenile court ordered the Department to provide family reunification services to mother, who had enrolled in an inpatient drug program, but denied Raymond H. family reunification services.
On September 7, 2009, Raymond H. wrote a letter to the juvenile court indicating he was in custody under a fictitious name.
On September 22, 2009, the Department reported mother was complying with the case plan and that maternal aunt took R.H. to visit mother every other Sunday at her program.
On September 30, 2009, Raymond H. appeared in custody for a review hearing. The juvenile court reiterated its finding Raymond H. was an alleged father only.
In October of 2009, the juvenile court ordered R.H. placed with maternal aunt.
In March of 2010, the Department reported mother actively was participating in her program, had been enjoying unmonitored visitation with R.H. and appeared to be committed to sobriety. Three months later, the Department recommended return of R.H. to mother’s care with family maintenance services. On June 14, 2010, the juvenile court adopted the Department’s recommendation and returned R.H. to mother’s care.
On December 10, 2010, the Department filed a supplemental petition which alleged mother had been under the influence of illicit drugs while R.H. was in her care and that mother left R.H. with maternal aunt without making an appropriate plan for the child’s care. The detention report indicated mother admitted she had suffered a relapse. Also, mother had been arrested on a felony charge on November 29, 2010. The juvenile court ordered R.H. placed with maternal aunt.
The disposition report indicated mother had been released from custody but Raymond H. had been convicted of felonies and was being transferred to prison. The Department recommended family reunification services for mother.
On February 2, 2011, the juvenile court advised mother that, notwithstanding the Department’s recommendation, mother already had received the maximum term of family reunification services. The juvenile court directed the Department to give notice and continued the matter for further proceedings on the supplemental petition and a contested review hearing regarding the termination of family reunification services.
In a letter to the juvenile court, Raymond H. indicated he was opposed to adoption but was agreeable to legal guardianship and he hoped to be part of R.H.’s life upon his expected release from prison in 2014. Raymond H. also submitted a progress report indicating he had completed 121 hours of domestic violence counseling while in jail. On March 23, 2011, the juvenile court sustained the supplemental petition, terminated the home of parent order, and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26 on July 20, 2011. Mother’s counsel indicated mother understood the maximum allowable time for providing family reunification services had been exceeded “so there really is no way she could argue for” an extension of services.
2. Raymond H.’s writ petition.
Raymond H.’s pro se writ petition claims mother was in compliance with the case plan and she previously had been reunified with R.H. Raymond H. asserts that, due to his incarceration, he has not received a copy of the record. He requests a stay of the proceedings until such time as he can obtain a copy of the record and file a proper writ petition, which he claims will show mother met all requirements for reunification with R.H.
Raymond H. attaches to the writ petition a handwritten letter he filed in the juvenile court on February 3, 2011, in which he asked the juvenile court to reconsider its decision of June 24, 2009, denying him family reunification services.
DISCUSSION
1. Raymond H.’s petition is procedurally deficient.
Rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court requires that a writ petition seeking review of an order setting a hearing under section 366.26 include certain specified information. In particular, “[t]he petition must be accompanied by a memorandum” that provides a summary of the significant facts and supports each point with argument and citation to authority and the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a)(2) & (b).) A petition that fails to comply with these rules is subject to dismissal. (See Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 584; Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157-158; Cheryl S. v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005; Cresse S. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 947, 955-956.)
Raymond H.’s petition includes no relevant argument, reference to the record or citation of legal authority. Accordingly, the petition is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Moreover, as disclosed in the discussion that follows, Raymond H. lacks standing to assert issues related to the juvenile court’s refusal to provide mother family reunification services and has forfeited the right to challenge the order denying him family reunification services. Consequently, staying the proceedings until Raymond H. can obtain a copy of the record will not affect the result in this case.
Based on these considerations, we shall deny the requested stay and order Raymond H.’s writ petition dismissed.
2. Raymond H. lacks standing to challenge the termination of mother’s family reunification services and failed to seek timely review of the order denying him family reunification services.
The juvenile court found Raymond H. was merely an alleged father. An “alleged father” has no right to visitation, custody, reunification services, or appointed counsel. (In re O. S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1410.) An “alleged father” only has the right to notice and an opportunity to show he should be afforded presumed father status. (Ibid. at p. 1408.)
Here, Raymond H. did not attempt to show he was a presumed father. As an alleged father, Raymond H. did not have a current interest in the issue presented at the time the juvenile court set the matter for a permanency planning hearing, namely, whether mother should receive additional family reunification services. Thus, Raymond H. lacks standing, as merely an alleged father, to challenge the termination of mother’s family reunification services by extraordinary writ. Further, putting aside Raymond H.’s status, under general principles of civil procedure, he lacks standing to assert error on behalf of mother. (See In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763, 768.)
With respect to Raymond H.’s attempt to seek review of the order denying him family reunification services, the juvenile court made that ruling in June of 2009. Raymond H. did not appeal that order. He therefore cannot raise the issue at this juncture. (Sara M. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 998, 1018.)
We therefore conclude that, in addition to the procedural deficiency of Raymond H.’s petition, he is barred from challenging the juvenile court’s refusal to provide mother additional family reunification services for lack of standing and has forfeited any claim of error in the juvenile court’s order denying him family reunification services.
DISPOSITION
The petition is dismissed. The request for a stay of the proceedings is denied. Our decision is final immediately as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(3).)
We concur: KITCHING, J., ALDRICH, J.