From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E.M. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 23, 2012
No. F063781 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2012)

Opinion

F063781 F063782

01-23-2012

E.M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. J.M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

E.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner E.M. J.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner J.M. No appearance for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Amy-Marie Costa, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JJV064967A,

JJV064967B, JJV064967C &

JJV064967D)


OPINION


(Super. Ct. Nos. JJV064967A,

JJV064967B, JJV064967C &

JJV064967D)


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.

E.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner E.M.

J.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner J.M.

No appearance for Respondent.

Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Amy-Marie Costa, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

Petitioners, J.M. (father) and E.M. (mother), seek an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying them reunification services as to their 13-year-old daughter, S., eight-and six-year-old sons, J. and N., respectively, and five-month-old son, E. We conclude their petitions, which we consolidated, fail to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and will dismiss the petitions as facially inadequate.

All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In October 2010, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) took then 11-year-old S., six-year-old J., and four-year-old N. from the custody of their parents, J.M. and E.M., husband and wife, because of E.M.'s drug abuse and both parents' engagement in domestic violence. S. was placed with her paternal grandmother and J. and N. were placed with their paternal uncle.

The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and provided both parents reunification services over the ensuing year; however, they were not compliant. During that year, specifically in the summer of 2011, J. and N. disclosed that J.M. told them to touch the other's penis while he watched "dirty movies." Around this same time, E.M. gave birth to E.

In October 2011, the agency took then two-month-old E. into protective custody and placed him with his paternal grandmother. The agency filed an original dependency petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleging that J.M. and E.M.'s drug abuse and domestic violence, and J.M.'s sexual abuse of J. and N., placed E. at risk of harm. (§ 300, subds. (b), (d) and (j).) The agency also filed a subsequent petition (§ 342) as to S., J. and N., alleging that J.M. sexually abused J. and N., that E. was at risk of being sexually abused, and that E.M. failed to protect the children.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In November 2011, the juvenile court terminated reunification services at the 12-month review hearing, denied E.M. and J.M. further reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing as to all four children.

DISCUSSION

J.M. and E.M. ask this court to vacate the section 366.26 hearing and order the juvenile court to continue reunification services, order visitation, and return custody of the children to them. They also ask this court to order all the children placed with their paternal grandmother and order the juvenile court to vacate the sexual abuse allegations. We decline to so do. Moreover, we will dismiss the writ petitions as we explain below.

A lower court's judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Consequently, an "appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error by an adequate record." (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) With respect to writ petitions challenging the setting of a section 366.26 hearing, 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, neither J.M. nor E.M. provides a summary of the facts, citation to the appellate record, or legal authority to support a claim of juvenile court error. Rather, aside from identifying information, the writ petitions are blank, including the space provided for specifying the grounds for error. Since J.M. and E.M. fail to set forth a claim of error, and since we do not independently review the appellate record for possible errors (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994), their petitions are facially inadequate and insufficient for review. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitions.

DISPOSITION

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


Summaries of

E.M. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cnty.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 23, 2012
No. F063781 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2012)
Case details for

E.M. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:E.M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 23, 2012

Citations

No. F063781 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2012)