Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Super. Ct. No. JD112606. Kenneth C. Twisselman II, Judge.
Michelle M., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B.C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Harris, J., and Levy, J.
OPINION
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450, 8.452) to vacate the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her infant daughter S. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (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
Petitioner has a long history of drug use, which resulted in the removal and permanent placement of several of her children. The underlying dependency proceedings concern S., who was removed from petitioner’s custody in November 2006 because of petitioner’s drug use. The juvenile court adjudged S. a dependent of the court and, at the dispositional hearing in May 2007, denied petitioner reunification services. (§ 361.5, subds. (b)(10) & (b)(11).) At the same hearing, the court ordered reunification services for S.’s father.
In June 2007, the juvenile court conducted an uncontested review hearing and terminated reunification services for S.’s father for failure to comply. Petitioner appeared at the hearing in custody and her attorney advised the court petitioner was scheduled to be released the following month and hoped to be able to visit S. at that time.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for S. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner does not allege juvenile court error. She merely asks for a chance to participate in reunification services upon her release from custody. Consequently, her petition fails to comport with the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition as set forth in 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.