Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Marilyn Kading Martinez, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Petition denied.
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK63585
James F., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
CROSKEY, J.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Owen L. Gallagher for Real Party in Interest.
In this dependency case brought under Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 et seq., James F., who is the alleged father of the minor children James S. and Joseph F., has filed a petition for extraordinary writ. By his petition, Father seeks relief from a July 10, 2007 order of the dependency court that set this case for a section 366.26 hearing on October 26, 2007. Father has filed his petition in propria persona.
Father’s petition requests that we direct the dependency court to (1) vacate the order setting the section 366.26 hearing, and (2) make an order that provides reunification services for Father and grants custody of the minor children to him. Father has also requested a temporary stay of the section 366.26 hearing.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, sets out the requirements for a writ petition that requests a review of an order setting a section 366.26 hearing. Among other things, the petition must contain a summary of the significant facts of the case as they appear in the record of the trial court, together with a reference to a page or pages of the record for each fact of the case presented in the petition. The petition must also contain a presentation of the grounds for the petition, including a legal argument concerning each ground, and a reference to laws, published cases of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, and/or rules of court to support each ground.
Father has not complied with rule 8.452. His presentation in his writ petition is limited to the following statement: “I do not want my kids turn[ed] over for adoption I would like to try and get them back.” This is not sufficient to explain to this court what has occurred in the case and why we should grant the relief Father requests. Therefore, Father’s petition will be denied.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ filed by Father is denied.
We Concur:
KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.