Opinion
F043265.
7-29-2003
PAUL F., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent, TULARE COUNTY HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
Paul F., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Bryan C. Walters, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 39.1B) of respondent courts order that a section 366.26 hearing be held on September 18, 2003, as to his daughter A. We will dismiss the petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner is the alleged father of A. who was removed from her mothers care, adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court and ultimately placed in a permanent plan of guardianship with her maternal aunt. Petitioners whereabouts were unknown during these proceedings.
In March 2003, A.s maternal aunt advised the court she could no longer care for A. Accordingly, the social services agency (agency) filed a supplemental petition recommending the court terminate the guardianship and set the matter for permanency planning. (§ 387.) By this time, the agency located petitioner housed in state prison.
On March 22, 2003, the court terminated guardianship and set a section 366.26 hearing to determine whether guardianship with another maternal aunt was the most appropriate permanent plan for A. The instant petition arises from the setting order.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims the setting order was erroneous under "California Rules of Court 1436.5 and [39.1B]." He seeks to preserve his parental rights and obtain reasonable visitation with his daughter. He pleads with the court to allow him "to retain a positive relationship with his daughter and lead a productive life upon release." Real party contends the petition should be dismissed as facially inadequate. We agree.
California Rules of Court, rule 39.1B sets forth the procedural requirements for completing the extraordinary writ petition. At a minimum, it requires the petitioner to assert a claim of juvenile court error. (Rule 39.1B(b).) Aside from citing rules 1436.5 and 39.1B, petitioner does not assert any juvenile court error. In the absence of asserted grounds for error, we must find the petition facially inadequate. To the extent petitioner seeks a court order granting him visitation, his remedy lies with the juvenile court by way of a section 388 petition.
Section 388 allows the parent of a child adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court to petition the court to change, modify or set aside any order upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed.