From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arcella v. Superior Court of Fresno County

Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.
Nov 3, 2003
No. F043789 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2003)

Opinion

F043789.

11-3-2003

ARCELLA J., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent, FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party In Interest.

Arcella J., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Phillip S. Cronin, County Counsel, and Howard K. Watkins, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Gomes, J.

Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. We will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

In December 2002, the Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) and the Fresno Police Department responded to a motel room where petitioner resided with his four children, then five-year-old J., two-year-old S., 20-month-old J.J. and eight-month-old M. and their mother, K. The floor was covered with trash and spoiled food and the children were dirty. There were three glass crack pipes in the motel room one of which lay broken on the bathroom floor. Petitioner and K. appeared to be under the influence of drugs and admitted to using crack cocaine. They were arrested for child endangerment and the children were taken into protective custody.

The juvenile court detained the children and, at disposition, assumed dependency jurisdiction. The court denied K. reunification services because she was incarcerated and her two-year sentence exceeded the allowable reunification period. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).) However, the court ordered a plan of reunification for petitioner that required him to complete a parenting course, complete substance abuse, mental health and psychological evaluations and follow any recommended treatment and submit to random drug testing.

Over the next six months, petitioner completed a mental health evaluation and no treatment was recommended. He also drug tested regularly with negative results. However, he was not as successful with the other requirements of his case plan. He completed residential drug treatment on March 3, 2003, and began the aftercare program the next day. He also took a job as an oil mechanic. On March 26, 2003, he was discharged from the aftercare program because of excessive absences. The department made petitioner three subsequent appointments to re-enroll in aftercare and he failed to keep the appointments. Petitioner was also scheduled for two parenting courses, but failed to attend. He completed a psychological evaluation, however, the psychologist concluded he would not benefit from services based on his failure to complete the other components of his case plan.

In its six-month review, the department reported that petitioners progress on his case plan was minimal. The department also reported that the children were placed together in the home of their paternal aunt who wanted to adopt them. Therefore, the department recommended the court terminate reunification services and set the matter for permanency planning.

The six-month review hearing was conducted on July 9, 2002. Petitioner was present represented by counsel. Counsel argued petitioners job precluded petitioner from participating in his court-ordered services and requested additional time to complete his case plan. Counsel also informed the court petitioner was participating in aftercare and scheduled to begin a parenting class on July 15, 2003. The court continued the matter in progress until July 16, 2003, and indicated it would continue services if petitioner were able to provide proof of his employment.

On July 16, 2003, the court conducted the continued six-month review hearing. Petitioner failed to appear or otherwise prove he was employed. Further, county counsel informed the court that all court-ordered services were scheduled in the evening after petitioner got off of work. Counsel for petitioner informed the court petitioner was possibly absent because of a death in the family and requested a continuance. The court denied the request, terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

Petitioner subsequently filed a section 388 petition seeking reinstatement of reunification services. The court heard argument on the motion and denied it without prejudice on September 2, 2003. On September 29, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary writ. He also requested, but failed to appear for oral argument before this court on October 30, 2003.

DISCUSSION

In a barebones petition, petitioner explains that his failure to appear at the continued six-month review hearing was his attempt to prove to the juvenile court that he was employed. He asks this court to issue a stay in the proceedings so that he can reinstate his parental rights. Real party in interest argues that the petition should be dismissed as facially inadequate. We agree.

California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B (rule) sets forth the procedural requirements for completing the extraordinary writ petition. At a minimum, it requires the petitioner to assert a claim of juvenile court error. (Rule 39.1B(b).) However, petitioner fails to do so. Accordingly, we must find the petition facially inadequate.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.


Summaries of

Arcella v. Superior Court of Fresno County

Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.
Nov 3, 2003
No. F043789 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2003)
Case details for

Arcella v. Superior Court of Fresno County

Case Details

Full title:ARCELLA J., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

No. F043789 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2003)