Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review Super. Ct. No. 61764, Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
A.S., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner (father) in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his two sons O.S. and A.S. 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
In February 2007, then four-year-old O.S. and nine-month-old A.S. were removed from their mother after she threatened her roommate with a knife. Also removed were the children’s half-siblings, S.C. and D.S. Though petitioner’s whereabouts were unknown, mother believed he was incarcerated.
Petitioner also challenges the setting hearing as to S.C. and D.S. who, according to the appellate record, are not his children. Consequently, petitioner cannot challenge the court’s orders as to them and this court is foreclosed from reviewing the juvenile court’s decisions as it relates to them.
In May 2007, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for mother. The court denied petitioner reunification services because his whereabouts were unknown. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(1).)
In October 2007, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of legal guardianship. In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the social services agency (agency) reported petitioner was incarcerated at a men’s colony and scheduled to be released in April 2009. In February 2008, the juvenile court ordered a permanent plan of guardianship for O.S. and A.S.
In July 2008, at the post-permanency plan review hearing (section 366.3 review hearing), the juvenile court continued guardianship as the permanent plan for O.S. and A.S. In December 2008, however, the agency recommended the court set a section 366.26 hearing at the next section 366.3 review hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption.
In January 2009, at the section 366.3 review hearing, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
A lower court’s judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Consequently, an “appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error by an adequate record.” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) With respect to writ petitions challenging the setting of a section 366.26 hearing, 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.)
Petitioner does not challenge the correctness of the juvenile court’s findings made and orders issued at the setting hearing. Rather, he states “I am presently incarcerated. I am scheduled to be released on [April 3, 2009] and I want my [c]hildren.” Since petitioner fails to set forth a claim of error, his petition fails to comport with rule 8.452 and is therefore inadequate on its face. Consequently, we will dismiss it.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.