Opinion
F052398
5-22-2007
ALBERT G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent, TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest.
Albert G., in. pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Amy-Marie Costa, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452) (rule) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his son C. 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
These dependency proceedings were initiated in December 2005 when C., then 13 years old, was taken into protective custody by the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) because there was no one suitable or willing to take care of him. He and petitioner, both legally blind, were living out of a car and supporting themselves on their social security income. Petitioner not only neglected C.s basic needs for food, shelter and medical care but also passively allowed C. to do as he pleased. Consequently, C. had not attended school in a year and periodically lived on the streets. Further, placing C. with his mother was not an option. She physically abused C. and his siblings for years while she and petitioner lived as a family. She ultimately left C. in petitioners custody and took C.s siblings with her. She claimed no interest in caring for C. and kept her whereabouts confidential. In addition, there were no relatives willing to assume custody of C.
The juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction over C., ordered him removed from petitioners custody and ordered petitioner to obtain and maintain a suitable residence, complete a parenting program and participate in conjoint therapy with C. C. was placed in foster care and ordered to participate in individual therapy and complete a program in anger management.
At the first six-month review of dependency in July 2006, the agency reported that C. was doing well in foster care and enjoying regular visits with petitioner. Petitioner and C. wanted to reunify but petitioner had not yet found a permanent place to live and he wanted C. to complete his anger management program before returning home. The agency recommended an additional six months of services with the objective of returning C. to petitioners custody. At the six-month review hearing, the court continued services and granted the agency discretion to return C. to petitioners custody.
In August 2006, the agency placed C. with petitioner and the arrangement worked well for several months. However, in early January 2007, petitioner turned C. over to the agency, stating he loved C. and wanted what was best for him but that he was unable to control him. He said C. refused to attend school, participate in therapy or obey petitioners house rules. Consequently, the agency asked the court to remove C. from petitioners custody pursuant to a supplemental petition (§ 387).
The juvenile court ordered C. detained pursuant to the supplemental petition and set a dispositional hearing on the supplemental petition. Meanwhile, the agency placed C. in foster care where he reportedly was doing well. In its report filed for the dispositional hearing, the agency recommended the court provide petitioner another six months of services because of C.s age, his objection to being placed in foster care and the likelihood he would remain in foster care until he reached the age of majority.
In February 2007, the court conducted an uncontested dispositional hearing on the supplemental petition. Petitioner did not personally appear but was represented by counsel. The court declined to continue services for petitioner, finding there was not a substantial probability C. could be returned to petitioners custody after another six months of services. Nevertheless, the court amended C.s plan to require petitioner to participate in conjoint therapy with C. The court also granted the agency the discretion to provide C. any other services that might be of benefit to C. and to arrange unsupervised visitation after consultation with C.s therapist. Finally, the court set a section 366.26 hearing for June 2007. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
As best we can glean from the writ petition, petitioner informs this court that he has secured a permanent residence and wants continued reunification services and custody of C. He also asks for additional services added to C.s case plan. However, as real party in interest correctly asserts, petitioner fails to identify error on the part of the juvenile court.
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.) While we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy, in this case, we conclude the petition is inadequate on its face. (Rule 8.452(a)(2).)
Nevertheless, to the extent petitioner seeks to modify the courts orders issued at the setting hearing based on changed circumstances or new evidence, he may do so by filing a section 388 petition in the juvenile court. However, in the absence of any claim of error, we must dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.