Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane Cardoza, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 02CEJ300222-4
C.R., in propria persona, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter, Jessica. We conclude the 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
Petitioner has a long history of methamphetamine use and domestic violence. She also has a prior history of child welfare intervention. In 2002, petitioner’s two sons were removed from her custody. She was provided reunification services, including drug abuse treatment, but did not comply. She failed to reunify with her sons who were adopted in 2004.
These dependency proceedings were initiated in September 2010 when the department of social services (department) took then two-year-old Jessica, the subject of this writ petition, and her three sisters, ranging in age from five months to six years, into protective custody in large part because of petitioner’s drug abuse and domestic violence. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for the father of the two youngest children pending the dispositional hearing. The court provided only supervised visitation for petitioner.
In its report for the dispositional hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court deny petitioner reunification services given her unresolved drug use and failure to reunify with her sons. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11) and (13).) The department also recommended the court deny Jessica’s father reunification services, but provide them to the fathers of her half-sisters. In addition, the department stated that paternal relatives had requested placement of all four girls, which would result in them living in three different households with only the two youngest living together.
In March 2011, the juvenile court conducted the contested dispositional hearing. Petitioner testified that, at the time her sons were removed, she and their father equally shared custody. During one of the father’s visits, the then two-year-old was severely beaten, requiring hospitalization. The police placed a protective hold on the children and child protective services took them into custody. She admitted her drug use and was provided reunification services, including drug treatment. She attempted outpatient drug treatment twice and inpatient treatment once before deciding to move out of state to rebuild her life. She returned at the time of the 12-month review hearing and opted to allow her sons’ paternal uncle to adopt them.
Petitioner further testified that she sought out and was funding her own services; a 52-week domestic violence program, a parenting class, and weekly counseling. In addition, she regularly attended Narcotics/Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and was scheduled to begin outpatient drug treatment in March. She said she last used drugs in September 2010.
During argument, petitioner’s attorney urged the court to find that petitioner made efforts to treat her drug problem following her failure to reunify with her sons and that it would be in Jessica’s best interest to provide her reunification services.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court denied petitioner reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (11) and (13), ordered supervised visitation, and set a section 366.26 hearing as to Jessica. The court ordered reunification services for the fathers of Jessica’s half-sisters and set a six-month review hearing as to them.
In issuing its ruling as to petitioner, the juvenile court found that she did not make reasonable efforts to treat her drug use and that her efforts to seek out and participate in services came on the eve of the hearing. The court also found that providing petitioner services would not be in the children’s best interests given her substantial history of substance abuse, failure to benefit from services, and her “extremely poor” prognosis for reunification. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
As grounds for juvenile court error, petitioner asserts that she should be given an opportunity to reunify with Jessica. She also wants Jessica placed with her siblings and exercise her parental rights to that end. Petitioner seeks reunification services and visitation. For the reasons set forth below, we cannot grant relief.
California Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452 govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court and filing the appropriate documentation. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court’s order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a).) To that end, the petition must support any claim(s) of error with citation to the appellate record and legal authority. (Rule 8.452(b).) In the absence of a claim of error, this court will not independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court, unless otherwise indicated.
In this case, petitioner does not contend the juvenile court erred in denying her reunification services or in fashioning its visitation order. Rather, she, in essence, contends the court should have ruled differently. Since petitioner does not raise juvenile court error, her petition is inadequate for review. In addition, because the section 366.26 hearing has not been conducted, any issues concerning Jessica’s permanent placement are not ripe for review. We will dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final as to this court.