Opinion
F077150
06-04-2018
D.W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
D.W., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. 17CEJ300204-1)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Leanne L. LeMon, Commissioner. D.W., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner D.W. is the biological father of now one-year-old S.H. who was declared a dependent of the Fresno County Juvenile Court and is the subject of these original proceedings. At the conclusion of a six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for S.H.'s mother and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan. D.W. (father), in propria persona, filed a petition under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, requesting visitation and S.H.'s placement with his sister. We conclude his petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and dismiss the petition.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2017, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took then one-month-old S.H. into protective custody after her mother was deemed a danger to herself and others and hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. The department considered father, who was then an inmate in state prison, as S.H.'s alleged father. The department placed S.H. in foster care where she remained.
In August 2017, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over S.H., ordered the mother to participate in reunification services and set the six-month review hearing for January 24, 2018. The court did not order services for father because as an alleged father he was not entitled to them. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).)
By the six-month review hearing in January 2018, father's biological paternity had been established through DNA testing and mother's whereabouts were unknown. The juvenile court elevated father's paternity status to biological father and continued the hearing to February 28 so the department could assess him for reunification services.
In an addendum report filed for the continued hearing, the department recommended against providing father reunification services, citing his violent criminal history and seven-year prison sentence imposed on June 27, 2017. The department also informed the juvenile court that S.H.'s foster parent wanted to adopt her.
At the six-month review hearing in February 2018, the juvenile court terminated the mother's reunification services, found it would not benefit S.H. to provide father reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for June 20, 2018.
DISCUSSION
Father does not assert the juvenile court's order setting a section 366.26 hearing was error. Instead, he claims his sister is prepared to take custody of S.H. and he asks for visitation.
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 the reviewing court. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow the reviewing court to review the juvenile court's orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs. Rule 8.452, which sets forth the content requirements for a writ petition, required father to identify the error(s) he believes the juvenile court made. (Rule 8.452(a) & (b).) Since father does not assert the juvenile court erred, this court will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.
Since placement and visitation are issues that must be raised in the juvenile court, father may want to consult the attorney handling the juvenile dependency case. --------
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).