Opinion
F042997.
7-18-2003
GLENN H., SR. Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent, KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party In Interest.
Glenn H., Sr., 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.
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) of respondent courts order that a section 366.26 hearing be held on June 9, 2003, as to his daughter K. and his son G. We will dismiss the petition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
K. and G. came to the attention of the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) in February 2001 because of their mothers substance abuse. They remained in her care with family maintenance services. However, they were taken into protective custody after their mother refused to drug test and admitted continued drug use. The mother was not offered further services. However, petitioner was ordered to participate in a case plan that included substance abuse counseling, parent training and child neglect counseling. By April 2002, petitioner completed his case plan. As a result, on August 2, 2002, the court returned the children to his care with family maintenance services, requiring him to abstain from illegal substances and submit to random drug testing.
In October 2002, petitioner tested positive for cocaine. The children were detained again and allegations of petitioners substance abuse were found true. The court ordered four months of reunification services, requiring petitioner to complete substance abuse counseling and physical abuse counseling and submit to random drug testing.
On April 28, 2003, after 18 months of services, the court found petitioner did not comply with his case plan and terminated reunification services.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not assert any claim of error. Therefore, the department argues the petition should be dismissed as facially inadequate for failure to comport with California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B. (rule). We agree. Rule 39.1B sets forth the procedural requirements for completing the extraordinary writ petition. At a minimum, it requires the petitioner to assert a claim of juvenile court error. (Rule 39.1B(b).) In the absence of asserted grounds for error, we must find the petition facially inadequate. Moreover, this court will not independently review the record for possible errors by the juvenile court. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994, 920 P.2d 716.)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.