Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review No. 06 JD 0046, George L. Orndoff, Judge.
Joanne R., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Peter D. Moock, County Counsel and Bryan Walters, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Harris, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Gomes, J.
OPINION
Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450/8.452) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her children T. and R. We conclude her 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
In April 2006, the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) took then two-year-old T. and newborn R. into protective custody after petitioner and R. tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. Pursuant to a dependency petition, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction over the children and ordered them removed from petitioner’s custody after sustaining allegations petitioner’s drug use placed the children at risk of harm. In addition, the court found the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied through the children’s father who was deceased. The North American Tribe (Tribe) of which the father was a member intervened and the children were placed with their paternal grandmother.
25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.
The juvenile court provided petitioner 12 months of reunification services, including drug treatment and random drug testing. Initially, petitioner made progress in her case plan and regularly visited her children with whom she had a loving relationship and strong bond. However, by the 12-month review hearing, she had entered inpatient drug treatment three times without completing the program and tested positive for methamphetamine in July 2007. In addition, she had not completed any of her other services. Consequently, in its 12-month status review for the court, the agency recommended the court terminate petitioner’s reunification services and set a hearing to select a permanent plan of legal guardianship commensurate with the beliefs of the Tribe.
In July 2007, the juvenile court conducted a contested 12-month review hearing on the department’s recommendation. By the time of the hearing, petitioner was an inpatient in a drug treatment facility, having completed almost one month of a four- month inpatient drug treatment program. She testified that she would have to complete a two-month aftercare program after she completed the inpatient phase of treatment. She thought she would be able to complete the program if the court continued services.
Following testimony, county counsel argued petitioner would not be able to complete her court-ordered services by the end of October 2007, which marked the statutory 18-month limitation on reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3).) The ICWA representative concurred in the agency’s recommendation to terminate petitioner’s services and proceed to permanency planning.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found the agency provided reasonable services and complied with the case plan in making active efforts to return the children to a safe home. The court terminated petitioner’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks return of the children to her custody. However, she does not specify how the juvenile court erred in deciding to terminate her reunification services and proceed to permanency planning. She simply states that she “would like [her] children back.” As such, the petition fails to comport with the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition as set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452) and precludes any meaningful appellate review.
Rule 8.452 specifies, inter alia, that the writ petition must include a summary of the significant facts and identify contested legal points with citation to legal authority and argument. (Rule 8.452(b).) At a minimum, the writ petition must “adequately inform the court of the issues presented, point out the factual support for them in the record, and offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues.” (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.) Because petitioner failed to comply with rule 8.452, her petition is inadequate for review and requires dismissal. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.