Opinion
F071416
07-07-2015
GARY F., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Gary F., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 517202) OPINION THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Gary F., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner Gary F. in propria persona seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court's order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his five-month-old son Christopher. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Gary informs this court that he is incarcerated but participating in substance abuse classes. He asks for the opportunity to apply the skills he is learning before his parental rights are terminated. Gary also informs this court that Christopher's paternal grandmother is willing and suitable to assume custody of Christopher. He questions why Christopher was instead placed with a stranger.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
We conclude Gary failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error. Consequently, we dismiss the petition as inadequate for our review.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In January 2015, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) took newborn Christopher into protective custody because his mother, Amanda, tested positive for methamphetamine upon admission to the hospital and was not bonding with Christopher. Gary, Christopher's biological father, was in jail for possession of methamphetamine and is expected to be released in June 2016. The agency placed Christopher in foster care.
The juvenile court adjudged Christopher a dependent child under section 300 and denied Amanda and Gary reunification services at a contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing. At the hearing, county counsel advised the court that the paternal grandmother submitted an application for placement and the agency offered to assess her home. However, she indicated that there was a parolee living in her home and that she would suffer a financial hardship if Christopher were placed in her home.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
Amanda did not file a writ petition. --------
DISCUSSION
Inadequate Petition
The purpose of writ proceedings such as these is to facilitate review of a juvenile court's order setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for a dependent child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).) A court's decision is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to a petitioner to raise specific issues and substantively address them. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) This court will not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Gary does not challenge any of the juvenile court's findings and orders and does not argue the juvenile court erred in setting the section 366.26 hearing. He merely states he is participating in services to address his drug abuse, his mother is prepared to take custody of Christopher and he does not want his parental rights terminated. In the absence of a claim of juvenile court error, we must dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is immediately final as to this court.