Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Nancy B. Williamsen, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 515433
N.D., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Linda S. Macy, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Dawson, J.
Petitioner, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her daughter, A.M. 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 2009, newborn, A.M., was taken into protective custody after she and petitioner tested positive for methamphetamine. Petitioner has a history of giving birth to substance-exposed babies. She told the social workers that A.M.’s father, H., a Mexican citizen, did not abuse drugs and had severed their relationship when he learned of petitioner’s drug habit. H. confirmed this and, based on their representations, the juvenile court ordered A.M. detained from petitioner’s custody and released to H.’s custody.
Less than two weeks later, however, the social services agency (agency) removed A.M. from H.’s custody after discovering he allowed petitioner to move into his home in violation of the court’s order. H. disclosed that he had smoked marijuana and crystal methamphetamine within the prior two weeks.
The juvenile court detained A.M. from both parents, exercised its dependency jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for H. only. The court set the six-month review hearing in September 2009.
By July 2009, H. had been deported to Mexico where he was living with his mother. Prior to that, he was noncompliant with his case plan and admitted using crystal methamphetamine. His social worker attempted to arrange services for H. in Mexico but he was not responsive to her and gave conflicting explanations about his failure to engage in services. In addition, petitioner was incarcerated, having been arrested in May for possession of methamphetamine, resisting arrest, and burglary, and A.M. had been placed with a relative. In its six-month review, the agency recommended the court terminate H.’s reunification services and proceed to permanency planning.
In September 2009, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated H.’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
H. did not file a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
Without citation to the record, petitioner seeks a stay of the section 366.26 hearing, requests placement of A.M. with H. in Mexico or with her paternal grandmother in Mexico, requests release from jail and asks that all court documents be sent “in Spanish only” to H.
Real party in interest argues the writ petition should be dismissed as facially inadequate under rule 8.452 for failure to specify grounds for juvenile court error. We concur that dismissal is appropriate in this case.
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.) While we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy, in this case, we conclude the petition is inadequate on its face. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.