From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brandon H. v. Superior Court of Merced Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 3, 2012
F064004 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2012)

Opinion

F064004

02-03-2012

BRANDON H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, Respondent; MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

Brandon H., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. Nos. JP000310)


OPINION


THE COURT

Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. John D. Kirihara, Judge.

Brandon H., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

Brandon H. (father) in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services for his wife and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to their 22-month-old son, Brandon Jr. Father contends he was never given a chance to reunify with his son. He adds that he is currently incarcerated, but will soon be able to attend whatever classes the court asks him to attend.

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

On review, we conclude father's petition is inadequate as it fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss his petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

When Brandon Jr. was six months old, neither of his parents was able to care for him. His mother had substance abuse and mental health issues, which seriously impaired her ability to care for and protect the child. Meanwhile, father was incarcerated on drug-related charges and was unable to provide any care for the child.

In November 2010, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction (§ 300, subd. (b)) over Brandon Jr., adjudged him a juvenile dependent and removed him from parental custody. By that time, father had been released on parole in Ventura County. He had a history of domestic violence and substance abuse, with no known treatment for either condition. The court ordered reunification services for both parents. It also warned them that because Brandon Jr. was less than three years old when he was detained, failure to participate regularly in any court-ordered treatment during the next six months might result in termination of reunification services.

Six months later, father had failed to make any progress towards reunification. He had not participated in any court-ordered services. Only once did he visit Brandon Jr. Meanwhile, in February 2011, father was arrested and incarcerated in Merced County on a drug-related charge.

Consequently, at a May 2011 status review hearing, father submitted on a social worker report, describing his non-compliance and recommending that his services be terminated. He acknowledged he could not complete any services due to his custodial status. The court terminated reunification services for father. It nonetheless continued services another six months for the mother, who at the time was doing well.

As of December 2011, father's situation had not changed according to his attorney. Father was incarcerated in state prison. The mother had relapsed in the meantime and stopped participating in services, as well as having any contact with the child. She later resumed some services, but her participation was inconsistent.

At a December status review hearing, the court terminated services for the mother and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the child.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of writ proceedings such as this is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).) The court's decision is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to petitioner to raise one or more claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. This court will not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Father fails to raise any claim of juvenile court error. While he argues he never received a chance to reunify with his son, the record directly refutes his claim. Father had the opportunity to reunify, but he never took advantage of court-ordered services. He failed to participate in services and later wasted the opportunity when he committed a new offense resulting in his reincarceration. The fact that father may soon be released does not mean the court erred by setting a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the child. Even father's counsel admitted father's circumstances had not changed since the court in May 2011 terminated his services.

Consequently, we dismiss father's petition as facially inadequate.

DISPOSITION

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


Summaries of

Brandon H. v. Superior Court of Merced Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 3, 2012
F064004 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Brandon H. v. Superior Court of Merced Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:BRANDON H., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 3, 2012

Citations

F064004 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2012)