Opinion
F080197
01-16-2020
D.N., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
D.N., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15CEJ300171-2, 15CEJ300171-3)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian M. Arax, Judge. D.N., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
D.N. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from a juvenile court's order issued on October 23, 2019, denying him reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing on February 19, 2020, as to his daughters, 13-year-old D.N. and 11-year-old K.N. (together the children). The children's mother, E.M., is not a party to this writ proceeding. Father asks this court to direct the juvenile court to order visitation between father and the children, grant him custody, and terminate dependency. We conclude he has failed to set forth a cognizable legal error and dismiss the petition.
All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
The children came to the attention of the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) on June 3, 2019, when mother made an inappropriate plan for the children to reside with an individual who was not able to care for them and mother's whereabouts were unknown. A second amended petition filed June 11, 2019, alleged jurisdiction based on mother's substance abuse, inappropriate plan of care, and a history of neglect of a sibling. As to both petitions, father's whereabouts were unknown.
At detention on June 12, 2019, the juvenile court found a prima facie showing that the children were persons described by section 300, and the juvenile court ordered the children temporarily removed from mother's custody. A combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was set for July 24, 2019.
In its report filed in anticipation of the combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the department recommended the children remain in out-of-home care; that mother be denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11) and (13); and that father be denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(7) and (12).
At the July 24, 2019, combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother requested trial and the matter was set for October 17, 2019, with a settlement conference for September 18, 2019. At the September 18, 2019, settlement conference, mother was absent; father requested to confirm the matter for trial and, on the date set for the contested hearing, requested a continuance of a week.
At the October 23, 2019, combined contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother did not appear. Father was asked about a 2016 Child Protective Services (CPS) case involving his daughters. Father at first stated there was no such case, but then acknowledged sexual abuse allegations against him were found true, but he did not believe the allegations were true. As a result, he was convicted of child endangerment, for which he served two years in jail and had just recently completed probation. Mother was eventually given custody of the children and father had seen D.N. only briefly one time since then. At that time, D.N. told him mother had told her to tell CPS father had done "things to them that [he] didn't do" because mother did not want father around. Father acknowledged not being given reunification services during the last CPS case, but he had completed parenting, alcohol abuse and anger management classes while in jail. Father insisted he was not guilty of the previous sexual abuse allegations and he was found guilty "due to not attending court." Father wished to reunify with his children and believed his children wished to visit with him.
The juvenile court acknowledged that it had read and considered the department's jurisdiction and disposition report; found the allegations in the amended petition true; removed the children from mother's custody; ordered no reunification services for mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11) and (13); ordered no reunification services for father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(7) and (12); and found visits between mother and father and the children detrimental. A section 366.26 hearing was set for February 19, 2020.
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11) provides reunification services need not be provided if the parental rights of a parent over a sibling or half sibling of the minor at issue has been permanently severed; section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) provides reunification services need not be provided if the parent has a history of substance abuse.
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(7) provides reunification services need not be provided if the parent is not receiving reunification services for a sibling of a child previously adjudged a dependent due to physical or sexual abuse by that parent; section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) provides reunification services need not be provided a parent who has been convicted of a violent felony. --------
DISCUSSION
In his petition, father requests that this court direct the juvenile court to order visitation between the children and father, return or grant custody of the children to father, and terminate dependency. For reasons we now explain, we must dismiss his writ petition as facially inadequate for appellate review.
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 father 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.)
Father's petition does not comply with rule 8.452 for several critical reasons: it does not identify the order being challenged, does not explain why the order is erroneous, and provides no factual basis for the petition. The written attachment to father's petition contains no specific claim of error as to the current jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders. Instead, the written attachment disputes the jurisdictional findings made in the prior dependency proceedings in 2015/2016. The time period to review such orders has long lapsed. Consequently, father's petition is facially inadequate for review.
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).