Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara No. J1251574, Hon. Zel Canter, Judge
Jesse Y., Sr., Petitioner.
No appearance by Respondent, Santa Barbara Superior Court.
Daniel J. Wallace, County Counsel, Toni Lorien, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
GILBERT, P.J.
Jesse Y., Sr. seeks extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court order terminating family reunification services for his child, and setting the matter for a permanent plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 1, 2006, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services ("CWS") filed a dependency petition on behalf of nine-year-old J. and his two half-siblings, N. and S. CWS alleged that the children's mother had used methamphetamine during her pregnancy with S. At birth, hospital toxicology tests revealed the presence of methamphetamine in the mother and the newborn. J.'s alleged father, Jesse Y., Sr., has a criminal history of drug offenses and crimes of violence. CWS alleged that the children's parents had failed to protect and provide for them. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g), (j).)
On November 2, 2006, the juvenile court ordered that the children be detained. Jesse attended the hearing and confirmed his residential street address, apartment number, and city. The court appointed counsel for Jesse for the purpose of establishing paternity The court ordered paternity testing, and advised Jesse that further notices would be mailed to the address that he confirmed. The court warned Jesse that he must inform it of any change of address; otherwise, he would not receive further court documents.
On January 4, 2007, the juvenile court held a jurisdiction hearing. Jesse did not attend. The court sustained the allegations of the dependency petition, declared the children dependents of the court, and ordered CWS to provide family reunification services to the mother. The court did not order that Jesse receive family reunification services because he was an alleged father.
Jesse did not participate in paternity testing. He missed appointments for testing on December 20, 2006, December 27, 2006, January 24, 2007, and February 21, 2007. The CWS social worker left telephone messages for him to schedule paternity testing and on March 13, 2007, sent him a registered letter concerning testing. Jesse responded to the letter and the CWS social worker scheduled a paternity test for April 4, 2007. Despite written notice of the testing date, Jesse did not attend the test.
Jesse attended only the detention and initial jurisdiction hearings in juvenile court. He did not attend the interim review, six-month review, or twelve-month review hearings.
On December 20, 2007, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s family reunification services and set the matter for a permanent plan hearing. A notice of writ advisement form was mailed to Jesse the following day at his Ocean Street address in Lompoc. Jesse filed notice of his intention to file a writ petition soon thereafter. On the form, he stated a different mailing address.
Jesse now seeks an extraordinary writ vacating the juvenile court order, and requesting visitation, family reunification services, and custody of J. CWS responds in part that the petition is inadequate because it does not provide citation to the record or argument with supporting authorities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (a) & (b).)
DISCUSSION
I.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (b) requires a writ petition to contain "a summary of the significant facts, limited to matters in the record" stating each point separately with support by argument and citation of authority. Jesse's petition for writ, filed in propria persona, states only that he is interested in visitation with his child, and that his former girlfriend withheld his mail regarding the dependency. The petition does not state significant facts or legal argument with citation to the record and to authority. We deny the petition for this reason. (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 579.)
II.
Alternatively, as an alleged father, Jesse is not entitled to visitation, family reunification services, or custody. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 451.) An "alleged" father is a man whose biological paternity has not been established, or a man who has not achieved presumed father status. (Id., at p. 449, fn. 15.) Moreover, Jesse, as an alleged father, has no standing to file a petition for extraordinary writ in this matter. (In re Joseph G. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 712, 715.) "'An alleged father in dependency or permanency proceedings does not have a known current interest because his paternity has not yet been established.'" (Ibid.) Despite many appointments to test for paternity, Jesse did not appear and participate in testing. He cannot now prosecute his claim. (Id., at p. 716.) Should there be a change of circumstances, Jesse, of course, may petition the superior court for consideration pursuant to section 388.
We deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
We concur: COFFEE, J. PERREN, J.