Opinion
F064716
06-08-2012
JORGE G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent;、 TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Jorge G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. JJV065411A)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
Jorge G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
Jorge G. (father) in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from an April 2012 juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for his four-year-old son, Izaiah. Father does not allege any error on the juvenile court's part. Instead, father, who is currently incarcerated, wants to "stay a final judgment in this case until [his] release from prison" and "gain reunification with [his] son." On review, we will dismiss father's petition as inadequate.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
--------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
The combination of the parents' substance abuse and father's gang affiliation in 2011 placed Izaiah at a substantial risk of serious physical harm. Consequently, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Izaiah and formally removed him from parental custody in May 2011.
Father was court-ordered to participate in a parenting education program, outpatient substance abuse treatment, random drug testing, and domestic violence assessment and recommended treatment. During the first six months of services, father complied only with the parenting education requirement of his reunification plan. Due to both parents' minimal progress with their reunification plans, the court continued Izaiah's out-of-home placement and services for both parents in November 2011.
Although father completed the parenting education program in December, he still did not participate in his other court-ordered services. In late December 2011, father was arrested and eventually incarcerated in state prison on a firearm charge. He is not scheduled to be released until May of 2013.
In April 2012, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for both parents and set a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for Izaiah. In so doing, the court found father failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the court-ordered programs.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of writ proceedings such as this is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(b).) The court's decision is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to petitioner to raise one or more claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. This court will not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Father wants to postpone Izaiah's right to permanency planning to sometime after father is released from prison. However, father fails to make any claim, let alone establish, that he was entitled to such relief in the juvenile court. He also ignores his lack of compliance with his court-ordered reunification services plan both before as well as since he was incarcerated.
Because petitioner fails to raise any claim of juvenile court error, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is immediately final as to this court.