Opinion
F081065
06-30-2020
C.F., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MADERA COUNTY, Respondent; MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
C.F., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MJP018272, MJP018273)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Thomas L. Bender, Judge. C.F., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.
-ooOoo-
C.F. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452) from the juvenile court's order issued at a 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (f)(1)) on April 16, 2020, setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now two-year-old daughter Z.M. and 13-month-old son V.M., III. The children's father, V.M. (father), did not file a writ petition.
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Mother seeks the children's return to her custody or the opportunity to reunify with them. She does not, however, contend the juvenile court erred in setting the section 366.26 hearing. Nevertheless, she asks this court to vacate the setting order. We conclude mother's petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Dependency proceedings were initiated in March 2019 when newborn V.M., III tested positive for amphetamine and marijuana. Mother admitted using methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy up to two days before she delivered. Father reported he and mother were married but had not lived together for over a year. He was staying with friends and did not have stable housing. Mother and Z.M. were living with her parents. The Madera County Department of Social Services (department) took the children into protective custody and placed them in foster care.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained pursuant to a petition filed by the department alleging mother's drug use placed them at a substantial risk of harm. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The petition was amended to additionally allege that father's drug abuse placed the children at risk of harm. The juvenile court found the allegations true at the jurisdictional hearing in April 2019.
By the dispositional hearing originally scheduled for late April 2019, the children had been placed with a maternal relative. The parents were participating in supervised visits with the children and bonding with the baby. However, they were not participating in services offered at the detention hearing. The department recommended the juvenile court deny the parents reunification services because they lost custody of another child in August 2016 because of their methamphetamine use and failed to reunify with her. The child was placed with a legal guardian.
On May 30, 2019, following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court denied mother reunification services but ordered services for father and set a six-month review hearing for November 2019. Mother did not appeal from the court's dispositional orders.
The juvenile court continued father's reunification services at the six-month review hearing in November 2019. The department reported that he was moderately compliant with his services plan but maintained his relationship with mother who continued to use drugs.
By the 12-month review hearing scheduled for March 2020, father expressed his inability to care for his children and supported adoption with their relative caregiver. He was working two jobs and struggling to support himself and visit the children. The caregiver reported that mother grabbed Z.M. during a church service and tried to run away with her. The police were contacted and mother was arrested. The department recommended the juvenile court terminate father's reunification services at the 12-month review hearing and deny mother visitation.
On April 16, 2020, following an uncontested 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated father's reunification services, denied mother visitation and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 10, 2020.
DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a juvenile court's rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) A parent seeking review of the juvenile court's orders from the setting hearing must, as mother did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court's orders and findings issued at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4).)
Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. It requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1), we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible, recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least articulate a claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Mother checked the boxes on form JV-825 indicating she wants the section 366.26 hearing vacated and either the children returned to her custody or an order for reunification services. She asserts she needs her children in her life and they need her. She does not, however, contend that the juvenile court erred in setting a section 366.26 hearing. Consequently, her writ petition does not comply with rule 8.452 and is inadequate for appellate review. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).