Opinion
F057443
6-25-2009
C.B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
C. B., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Ardaiz, P.J., Dawson, J., and Hill, J.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Petitioner (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from respondent courts order issued at a 12-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing1 as to her daughters, S.L. and S.F. We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In April 2008, the human services department (department) filed dependency petitions on behalf of then five-year-old S.L. and five-day-old S.F., alleging petitioners substance abuse placed the children at a substantial risk of harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The petitions further alleged petitioner tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana at the time of S.F.s birth, and that petitioner had a 15-year history of methamphetamine use. The children were placed in foster care.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained and ordered petitioner to participate in mediation, as a result of which the department amended the petition to allege petitioner had a 10 rather than a 15-year history of methamphetamine use. At an uncontested jurisdictional hearing in May 2008, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true as amended and adjudged both children dependents of the court.
In June 2008, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered petitioner to participate in counseling for parenting and substance abuse and submit to random drug testing. The court also ordered twice weekly one-hour visitation and set the six-month review hearing for November 2008.
During the first six months, petitioner visited the children regularly, and the visits went well. She tested negative for drugs and was enrolled in counseling programs. However, she had two active warrants for her arrest, one in Kern County for welfare fraud and the other in Santa Barbara County for violation of felony probation. Petitioner contacted the Santa Barbara Sheriffs Office and was told she would be extradited to Santa Barbara if she turned herself in to authorities. In its six-month review of services, the department recommended the court continue reunification services until the 12-month review hearing to allow petitioner to complete her services and clear up her warrants.
In November 2008, the juvenile court conducted the six-month review hearing. Petitioner appeared through counsel who submitted the matter on the departments report. The court found petitioner was provided reasonable reunification services and made moderate progress in resolving the problems necessitating the childrens removal. The court also found there was a substantial probability the children would be returned to petitioners custody within six months and set the 12-month review hearing for April 2009.
By April 2009, petitioner had completed her parenting program but failed to drug test until February when she tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. In addition, she was discharged from substance abuse treatment for poor attendance and excessive tardiness. In March, she was arrested on outstanding warrants and sentenced to 180 days in county jail. In light of petitioners failure to complete her court-ordered reunification services, the department recommended in its 12-month review that the juvenile court terminate reunification services and proceed to permanency planning.
In April 2009, at the 12-month review hearing, petitioner, incarcerated, appeared through counsel who asked the juvenile court to continue the hearing so that petitioner could be transported to the hearing. The court denied the request. Petitioners attorney also advised the court petitioner wanted to complete substance abuse treatment.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found petitioner was provided reasonable services, but that petitioner failed to regularly participate and make substantive progress. The court also found there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to petitioners custody within six months. The court ordered services terminated and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
A lower courts 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, California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule) 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 courts findings and orders at the setting hearing. She merely expresses her desire that her children be returned to her custody. Since petitioner fails to set forth a claim of error, her petition fails to comport with rule 8.452 and warrants dismissal for facial inadequacy.
Further, even if this court construed the petition as raising cognizable issues concerning custody and provision of reunification services, we would find no reason to reverse or modify the juvenile courts findings and orders. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994; Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 580.) There was sufficient evidence it would be detrimental to return the children to petitioners custody given her failure to complete substance abuse treatment. (§ 366.21, subd. (f).) In addition, the juvenile court properly terminated reunification services to petitioner in light of the reasonable services she was provided, her failure to comply, and the unlikelihood the children would be returned to her custody following continued services. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.