From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Darrell W. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Mar 3, 2008
No. F054352 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2008)

Opinion


DARRELL W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. F054352 California Court of Appeal, Fifth District March 3, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Robert J. Anspach, Judge, Super. Ct. No. JD090649.

Darrell W., in pro per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT

OPINION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

S., now 16, was adjudged a dependent of the court in 2000 along with his siblings because of his mother Barbara’s neglect and petitioner’s drug use and 1996 conviction for sexually molesting S.’s older half-sister. Services to the parents and family maintenance for petitioner proved to be ineffective and, in 2003, the children were placed with their paternal grandmother (grandmother) under a plan of legal guardianship.

S. remained with his grandmother until October 2006 when he went to live with his older sister because he and his grandmother were not getting along. In November 2006, the juvenile court set aside the legal guardianship as to S. and ordered S. placed on an extended visit with his sister until her home could be assessed. The court set a review hearing for November 2007.

In October 2007, petitioner filed a petition pursuant to section 388, subdivision (a) (388 petition) seeking custody of all four children, including S. The court scheduled argument on the section 388 petition to occur on the date set for the review hearing.

During discussions with the social services department (department) prior to the review hearing, petitioner agreed that S. should remain with his older sister. As a result, petitioner withdrew his 388 petition at the November 2007 hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court set a section 366.26 hearing as to S. to implement a permanent plan and ordered the department to provide family maintenance services to the grandmother for S.’s siblings. This petition ensued.

DISCUSSION

In this barebones petition, petitioner merely checked the boxes on the form expressing his desire for remand and an order for continued reunification services. Rule 8.452 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.)

In this case, petitioner informed this court of his desired remedy but failed to explain how the juvenile court erred in setting the section 366.26 hearing. Without even an assertion of error, we must dismiss the petition as inadequate on its face. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)

DISPOSITION

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

[*] Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.


Summaries of

Darrell W. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Mar 3, 2008
No. F054352 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2008)
Case details for

Darrell W. v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:DARRELL W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 3, 2008

Citations

No. F054352 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2008)