Opinion
F063310 Super. Ct. No. 515977
12-29-2011
AMANDA H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Amanda H., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
Amanda H., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
Amanda seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) in propria persona from the juvenile court's order terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her one-year-old son, K. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 and will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
We refer to petitioner's son by his first initial because of the uniqueness of his name. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.401(a)(2).)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In November 2010, then three-month-old K. was removed from Amanda's custody after he sustained burns on his neck and Amanda could not provide a consistent account of how it happened. At the time, Amanda and K.'s father, Eric, were receiving family maintenance services but were not complying. K. was placed in foster care.
Eric did not file a writ petition.
--------
In February 2011, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for Amanda and Eric, including psychological evaluations to determine if they could utilize services. The juvenile court set the six-month review hearing for July 2011.
In March 2011, Amanda participated in a psychological evaluation. The psychologist concluded that she suffers from a mental disorder and that it was unlikely she would sufficiently benefit from the services offered to her to safely and effectively parent K. within the allowable statutory timeframe. The same psychologist evaluated Eric and concluded successful reunification was unlikely in his case as well. Based on the psychologist's conclusions, the juvenile court ordered Amanda and Eric to participate in a second psychological evaluation to ascertain their ability to benefit from reunification services. They did so and the psychologist concurred that Amanda and Eric each suffer from a mental disability that prevents them from benefitting from reunification services.
In its report for the six-month review hearing, the social services agency (agency) reported that Amanda was persevering in her case plan requirements and enjoying positive visitation with K. Nevertheless, the agency recommended that the juvenile court terminate reunification services for Amanda and Eric based on the results of the psychological evaluations.
The six-month review hearing was continued and conducted in September 2011. Amanda testified she was participating in drug treatment and parenting classes. She admitted that she has "mental problems" and that she forgot appointments but wanted a second chance with her son.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Amanda and Eric and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Amanda asks this court for a second chance to reunify with K. She acknowledges the problems requiring his removal, but states that she was complying with her reunification plan and trying to be a good mother. She doubts that the juvenile court fully appreciates how well she treats K. and has video of her last visit with him. She also asks that her cousin be allowed to adopt K. if continuing reunification services for her is not an option.
Amanda, in essence, describes the circumstances of her case which is set forth in the juvenile court record now before us as the appellate record. What she does not do, however, is explain how the juvenile court erred in terminating her services in light of two psychologists' opinions that she would not benefit from them.
California Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452 govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, 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 Amanda 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.