Opinion
F078123
12-17-2018
JERRY G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Jerry G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17CEJ300395-1)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Brian M. Arax, Judge. Jerry G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Kevin A. Stimmel, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.
-ooOoo-
On September 12, 2018, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Jerry G. (father) and Maryjane S. (mother), parents of now one-year-old Jerry G., Jr., (Jerry) and the subject of these writ proceedings, at a contested six-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e)(1)) and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 9, 2019. Father seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450, 8.452.), directing the juvenile court to grant him custody and continue reunification services. Father does not, however, comply with the rules by asserting juvenile court error. Consequently, we dismiss his petition as facially inadequate for review.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
Mother did not file a writ petition. --------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In December 2017, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) responded to the hospital after receiving a report that mother and newborn Jerry tested positive for methamphetamine. Jerry is the first child for mother and father and neither parent had child protective history as adults. Both, however, were using methamphetamine and the department was concerned about Jerry's safety if released to their care.
The department filed a dependency petition on Jerry's behalf, based on his parents' substance abuse. The juvenile court ordered Jerry detained pursuant to the petition and the department placed him in foster care.
In January 2018, the juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered the parents to participate in parenting, substance abuse, and mental health services and twice weekly supervised visitation. The court set the six-month review hearing for July 2018.
By July 2018, neither parent had complied with their services plan and the department did not believe they could reunify if given more time. Though father regularly visited Jerry and their visits went well, father's continued drug use prevented him from making any progress. He was dropped from a parenting class several times, finally completing it in late June. While attending, he appeared to be under the influence and struggled to stay awake. He was referred for a mental health assessment several times but never responded. He tested positive for methamphetamine throughout 2018, except for a brief period in March and April when he was in residential treatment. He was dismissed from the program in late April for breaking program policy and resumed drug use. In its report for the six-month review hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services.
At the contested hearing, father's attorney asked the juvenile court to continue father's reunification services and set a 12-month review hearing in January 2019. He pointed out that father continued to attend substance abuse treatment and completed a parenting program. He asked the court to consider evidence of father's bond with Jerry and his positive and affectionate interaction with him during visitation. Mother's attorney advised the court she had not had any contact with mother and did not have any evidence to present. Mother told the court she did not want to give up her rights to Jerry and was trying to get into drug treatment. She explained she had been "in and out from county" and was trying to situate her life but "it takes time."
The juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing, stating, "unfortunately it's too little too late."
DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a juvenile court's rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, absent a showing of error, this court will not disturb them.
A parent seeking review of the juvenile court's orders from the setting hearing must, as father did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow this court to review the juvenile court's orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs.
Rule 8.452 requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).)
In his petition, father seeks relief from the juvenile court's orders based on his situation. For example, he claims to be employed and enrolled in college, he cites his completion of a parenting class and willingness to participate in an inpatient drug treatment program and claims he has never been convicted of a crime as an adult or served a jail sentence. He believes he has a bright and sober future and wants to give Jerry everything his father never gave him. He does not, however, identify any legal error committed by the juvenile court.
When the petitioner does not allege legal error, as occurred here, there is nothing for this court to review. Consequently, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).