Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Peter A. Warmerdam, Juvenile Court Referee. No. JD125528-00
Gloria C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Mark L. Nations, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Franson, J.
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter, Isabella. We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner has a history of drug use, violence, and child neglect. She also has a history of child welfare intervention predating these proceedings. In 2003, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over petitioner’s minor son and two minor daughters, including J.T. who, though not a subject of this writ petition, is a named victim in this case. The court provided petitioner reunification services, but subsequently terminated them. In 2006, the court ordered the three children placed with their maternal grandmother under legal guardianship. In 2007, petitioner gave birth to Isabella.
These dependency proceedings arose in November 2010 when petitioner beat then 12-year-old J.T. with a small bat, leaving bruises on the child’s arms and legs. She also reportedly pushed Isabella out of the apartment so forcefully that Isabella nearly hit the front bumper of a vehicle parked in front of the residence. Petitioner was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and child cruelty.
The Kern County Department of Human Services (department) took then three-year-old Isabella into protective custody and filed a dependency petition on her behalf. The juvenile court ordered Isabella detained pursuant to the petition and ordered weekly supervised visitation. The department placed Isabella in foster care and referred petitioner for outpatient substance abuse classes, group and individual counseling, relapse prevention, and random drug testing.
In February 2011, at the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the dependency petition and adjudged Isabella a dependent of the court. Later that month, petitioner tested positive for methamphetamine at a level indicated to be very strong. In early March, the department received a progress report that petitioner attended only 3 of 16 group sessions and had not attended since early February.
In March 2011, at the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court denied petitioner reunification services and found that the whereabouts of Isabella’s father were unknown. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing and reduced visitation to once monthly. Approximately two weeks later, the court ordered Isabella placed with her maternal grandmother. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
As grounds for juvenile court error, petitioner asserts the following: “Said I didn’t show to court but did. Say my SW reports show no effort but that’s not true. I’m being discriminated.” She seeks reunification services, custody, and visitation. For the reasons set forth below, we cannot grant relief.
California Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452 (rule), govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court and filing the appropriate documentation. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court’s order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a).) To that end, the petition must support any claim(s) of error with citation to the appellate record and legal authority. (Rule 8.452(b).) In the absence of a claim of error, this court will not independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court, unless otherwise indicated.
In this case, petitioner does not claim juvenile court error. Rather, she disputes facts she claims are contained in the appellate record (i.e., that she did not appear in court and that she did not make efforts). Even if we credited petitioner’s claims of factual error, she has still not explained how the court erred in ruling as it did. Since petitioner does not raise juvenile court error, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final as to this court.