Opinion
F052477
5-30-2007
JUAN L., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent, TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party In Interest.
Juan L., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Jonna M. Thomas, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452 (rule)) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to his two daughters and son. We conclude his petition fails to comport with the procedural and content requirements of rule 8.450-8.452. 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 August 2005, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) removed petitioners then seven and four-year-old daughters and six-year-old son from the custody of their mother V. and placed them in foster care. Petitioner was then and still is an inmate in an out-of-state penitentiary serving a sentence for second degree murder. He is expected to be released in 2049.
In October 2005, the juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over the children and provided reunification services for V. until March 2007 when, at a contested 18-month review hearing, the court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not claim the juvenile court erred in any of its rulings issued at the March 2007 setting hearing. Rather, he attempts, by his writ petition, to have his children placed with his sister. Rule 8.450-8.452 provides an expeditious means by which a petitioning parent can obtain appellate review of an alleged juvenile court error committed at the setting hearing. However, in the absence of alleged error, this court cannot conduct a meaningful review nor will we review the record for potential errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Moreover, issues concerning custody of dependent children must be raised in the first instance in the juvenile court. Consequently, we must dismiss the petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.