Opinion
F062743
09-30-2011
M.O., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
M.O., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Mark L. Nations, Deputy County Counsel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JD126077-00)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jon E. Stuebbe, Judge.
M.O., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Theresa A. Goldner, County Counsel, and Mark L. Nations, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) (rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested dispositional hearing denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her three-month-old daughter, A. 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 March 2011, newborn A. was taken into protective custody by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) after she and her mother, petitioner, tested positive for methamphetamine. Petitioner has a long history of drug abuse and child neglect. In 2005, A.'s two half-siblings were removed from petitioner's custody because petitioner could not provide them food or shelter. Petitioner was provided reunification services including mental health counseling, parenting instruction and random drug testing. However, she failed to comply. Consequently, in 2006, the juvenile court ordered the children into long-term foster care. In 2009, they were placed with a maternal relative under legal guardianship.
The juvenile court ordered A. detained and appointed clinical psychologist Dr. Middleton to perform a psychological evaluation. Dr. Middleton evaluated petitioner in April 2011, diagnosed her with a psychological disorder and opined that her prognosis for completion of services was poor. That same month, A. was placed with her paternal grandmother.
In May 2011, the juvenile court adjudged A. a dependent of the court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling).
In June 2011, the juvenile court conducted a contested dispositional hearing on the department's recommendation to deny petitioner reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) because she failed to reunify with her two older children and section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) because of her chronic drug use. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, but was represented by counsel who objected to the recommendation to deny services, but submitted on the evidence. The juvenile court denied petitioner reunification services as recommended and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends the social workers submitted misleading evidence which resulted in the juvenile court's order denying her services. Apparently, in an attempt to remedy that, she attached various documents to her writ petition, none of which are contained in the appellate record. Aside from her claim regarding the social workers, petitioner does not assert that the juvenile court erred in rendering its findings.
California Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452 govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court and filing the appropriate documentation. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).) In the absence of a claim of error, this court will not independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Consequently, since petitioner does not raise juvenile court error, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.