Opinion
F080259
02-07-2020
C.M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
C.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Kelli R. Falk, Deputy County Counsel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JD136525-01, JD136526-01)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Raymonda B. Marquez, Judge. C.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Kelli R. Falk, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner C.M. (mother), in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing on October 30, 2019, terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to be conducted on February 27, 2020, as to her now seven-year-old son, C.B., and six-year-old daughter, J.B (the children). Mother does not claim the juvenile court erred in its rulings. Instead, she expresses her desire that the court place the children with a family member while she seeks to regain custody. If her parental rights are terminated at the section 366.26 hearing, she would like to visit them. We conclude mother's writ petition fails to comport with the content requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition as inadequate for appellate review.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
All references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In August 2017, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) took then five-year-old C.B. and three-year-old J.B. into protective custody after monitoring the family situation for several weeks. The children were outside all hours of the night unsupervised and C.B. was observed lying in the street by a speed bump. They were dirty and did not wear shoes and knocked on the neighbors' doors stating they were hungry. Mother reportedly slept all day and exhibited signs of methamphetamine use. The department obtained a protective warrant after mother tested positive for methamphetamine and was involved in a domestic violence incident with her boyfriend where she received a black eye and her boyfriend was arrested. The children were present and witnessed the violence. The children were placed together in foster care.
The department also took the children's then 13-year-old brother and four-month-old twin half siblings into protective custody, but they are not subjects of mother's writ petition.
The juvenile court ordered the children detained and declared Jack B. to be C.B. and J.B.'s presumed father. In March 2018, the court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children, placed them with Jack under a plan of family maintenance and ordered mother to participate in reunification services.
The children's placement with Jack was short-lived. In July 2018, the department removed them from him and filed supplemental petitions on their behalf (§ 387), which the juvenile court sustained, alleging Jack tested positive multiple times for methamphetamine and allowed the children outside unsupervised. In September 2018, at the dispositional hearing on the supplemental petitions, the juvenile court ordered Jack to participate in reunification services. At the six-month review hearing that same month, the court continued mother's reunification services to the 12-month review hearing, which it set for the end of the month. The court found mother made minimal progress in achieving her case plan objectives.
The juvenile court conducted the 12-month review hearing as to mother in October 2018 and terminated her reunification services. Mother did not appeal. In March 2019, at the six-month review hearing for Jack, the court continued his reunification services until September 2019. In its report for the hearing, the department recommended the court terminate Jack's reunification services because, although he regularly visited the children, he continued to use methamphetamine. Jack requested a contested hearing, which the court set for October 30, 2019.
Mother did not personally appear at the contested hearing. Jack testified he had been sober for approximately a month and was willing to reenroll in a substance abuse program. His attorney argued for additional time to reunify with the children. The attorney representing mother submitted the matter for the court's decision.
The juvenile court declined to continue Jack's reunification services, finding there was not a substantial probability the children could be placed in his custody with continued services. The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for February 27, 2020. The court did not change the visitation order.
Jack did not file a writ petition. --------
DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a juvenile court's rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, absent a showing of error, this court will not disturb them.
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 writ proceedings is to allow this court to review the juvenile court's orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs.
Rule 8.452 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).)
Mother checked the box on the preprinted petition indicating her desired outcome; i.e., that the children be returned to her or placed with a relative. She did not, however, allege any grounds on which she claims the juvenile court erred.
When the petitioner does not allege legal error, as occurred here, there is nothing for this court to review. Consequently, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate. As for mother's concerns regarding relative placement and visitation should her parental rights be terminated at the section 366.26 hearing, she may want to consider discussing these issues with her court-appointed attorney.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).