Opinion
A149876
01-04-2017
JESSE M., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LAKE COUNTY, Respondent; LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. JV320448)
Jesse M. (father) petitions this court for extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a selection-and-implementation hearing for his son, who is also named Jesse. In this abbreviated opinion, we deny the petition.
Because father's petition raises no substantial issues of law or fact, we resolve this cause by abbreviated form of opinion as permitted by California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
Then five-year-old Jesse came to the attention of real party in interest Lake County Department of Social Services (Department) when father was arrested for burglarizing a home while Jesse was waiting in a car. The Department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that father and Kathryn C. (mother) provided inadequate care to Jesse. At the time the petition was filed, father was incarcerated on the burglary charges, and he remained incarcerated throughout the proceedings in the juvenile court. During that time, father was convicted of first-degree burglary and other crimes and sentenced to more than four years in prison.
The juvenile court ultimately sustained allegations that both parents had untreated substance issues that impaired their ability to care for Jesse. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b) [failure to protect].) Jesse was adjudged a dependent child, and the juvenile court ordered that father receive reunification services.
Following a hearing on October 11, 2016, the juvenile court terminated both parents' reunification services and denied father's request that he receive visitation with Jesse. The court also scheduled a selection-and-implementation hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) for February 1, 2017. Father was represented by counsel below but filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition without the assistance of counsel. Father's petition consists of a standard, three-page Judicial Council form, with no supporting memorandum of points and authorities. Father requests that Jesse be placed with a relative until he (father) is released from prison but does not mention, let alone analyze or challenge, any of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's order.
The juvenile court acknowledged below that father had made personal progress after being incarcerated and that he was heading in the "right direction," but found that it would not be in Jesse's interest to delay permanency. This court likewise has not been presented with any reason to set aside the juvenile court's October 11, 2016 order or to delay the scheduled permanency-planning hearing.
Father's petition for an extraordinary writ is denied. The decision is final in this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(i), 8.490(b)(2)(A).) To the extent that father requests a stay of the juvenile court's February 1, 2017 hearing, that request is denied as moot.
/s/_________
Humes, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Dondero. J. /s/_________
Banke, J.