Opinion
F086299
08-10-2023
PAUL G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Paul G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. No. 23CEJ300090-1 Amythest Freeman, Judge.
Paul G., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Carlie Flaugher, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
Petitioner Paul G. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452) from the juvenile court's dispositional orders bypassing him for reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (a), and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his daughter Eva G. (born February 2023). Father's paternity status is that of alleged father. We review his petition assuming he has standing. Father requests this court (1) vacate the order designating a specific placement after termination of parental rights, (2) remand for hearing, (3) order reunification services be provided, (4) order visitation, (5) return or grant custody of Eva to father, (6) terminate dependency, and (7) grant custody of Eva to paternal grandmother. Additionally, he requests a stay of proceedings in the respondent court. We deny the petition and the request for a stay of proceedings.
All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Petition and Detention
On April 5, 2023, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) filed a petition on behalf of then one-month-old Eva pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition alleged Sarah S. (mother) suffered from mental health issues that negatively affected her ability to provide Eva with adequate care, supervision, and protection. Mother had been placed on a section 5150 hold as she had been found to be a danger to herself and others. She had a significant history of mental health issues, was severely mentally disabled, and had been neglecting her mental health needs. The petition further alleged that Eva was at risk of suffering similar abuse to her three siblings, who were found to have been abused or neglected by mother. Eva's father was listed as unknown on the original petition. Eva was detained and placed in a licensed foster home.
In its detention report the department recommended Eva be detained from mother and that she be denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). The detention report stated father's identity was unknown as the department had not received any information. The department indicated it would submit a "Parent Search and Family Finding" referral on father's behalf upon receiving his name.
On April 6, 2023, the juvenile court held a detention hearing and found a prima facie case had been established, ordered Eva detained, removed her from mother's custody, ordered mother be offered random drug testing, and ordered supervised visits for mother.
On April 26, 2023, the department filed a first amended petition identifying father as Eva's alleged father.
Jurisdiction and Disposition
In its jurisdiction and disposition report, the department recommended the allegations in the first amended petition be found true, Eva be adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court, mother be bypassed for reunification services, father be bypassed for reunification services due to his alleged father status, and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. By this time, father had made himself available to the department. He was incarcerated for various felonies. The department indicated there was not enough evidence to elevate father's status to presumed father. Although mother referred to father as her husband, the department had not received verification of their marriage. Additionally, both father and alleged paternal grandmother reported father was incarcerated and did not sign any paternity documentation, and Eva's birth certificate was not available.
On May 8, 2023, father filed a "Prisoner's Statement Regarding Appearance at Hearing Affecting Parental Rights" (JV-451) stating he understood that a hearing had been set to consider a petition to declare Eva a dependent of the court and requested he be appointed counsel to represent him at the hearing. Additionally, he filed a "Statement Regarding Parentage" (JV-505) stating he had been incarcerated since mother was three months pregnant and requesting the court enter a judgment of parentage. He reported he had provided money for formula, powdered milk, diapers, and clothing, and Eva had spent approximately two weeks with his family. The juvenile court set a hearing on the JV-505 for August 29, 2023.
On May 9, 2023, the juvenile court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The court found the allegations true, removed Eva from mother's custody, bypassed mother for reunification services, bypassed father for reunification services due to his alleged status, ordered supervised visits for mother, and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 29, 2023 (the same date of the JV-505 hearing).
On May 22, 2023, father filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, we address the adequacy of father's writ petition.
Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. "The petition must be liberally construed and must include: [¶] (A) The identities of the parties; [¶] (B) The date on which the superior court made the order setting the hearing; [¶] (C) The date on which the hearing is scheduled to be held; [¶] (D) A summary of the grounds of the petition; and [¶] (E) The relief requested." (Rule 8.452(a)(1)(A)-(E).) Additionally, "[t]he petition must be verified," and it "must be accompanied by a memorandum." (Rule 8.452(a)(2)-(3).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1), we liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible, recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, a petitioner must at least articulate a claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Father's writ petition is inadequate. He filled out a "Petition for Extraordinary Writ" (JV-825) but left blank the section of the form designated for explaining why the court's order was erroneous. Neither did he provide a summary of the factual basis for his petition. Additionally, he made conflicting requests for relief. He requested this court (1) vacate the order designating a specific placement after termination of parental rights, (2) remand for hearing, (3) order that reunification services be provided, (4) order visitation between the child and father, (5) return or grant custody of the child to father, (6) terminate dependency, and (7) grant custody of Eva to paternal grandmother. Some of these requests are inapplicable here. For instance, this court cannot vacate the order designating a specific placement after termination of parental rights because there is no such order, as parental rights have not yet been terminated. We conclude the petition is inadequate for review. Nevertheless, we reviewed the record for possible errors and found none.
Father has not elevated his paternity status beyond that of alleged father, but did file a JV-505 stating he believed he was Eva's father and requested the court enter a judgment of paternity. He did not request DNA testing. The court has set a hearing on father's request. Because father has not elevated his status, he does not have a legal interest in Eva and is not entitled to custody, reunification services, or visitation. (In re O.S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1406; § 361.5, subd. (a) [the court may order services for a biological father].) Moreover, the alleged paternal grandmother could not be considered for placement as biology has not been determined. (§ 361.3, subd. (a) [relatives had preferential consideration for placement].)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied.
[*] Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.