Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review Super. Ct. Nos. 509351, 509352, 509353, 509354, 509355, 509771, Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.
Penny M., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party In Interest.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
OPINION
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 & 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her six children, S., G., K., M., T. and C. 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
Dependency proceedings were initiated in July 2006 after petitioner was incarcerated on domestic violence charges and left her five eldest children, S., G., K., M. and T., with A., a man known to her to be a registered sex offender. The juvenile court ordered the children removed from petitioner’s custody and ordered reunification services for her. The court set the six-month review hearing in February 2007. Meanwhile, in January 2007, petitioner delivered A.’s son, C. The juvenile court ordered C. removed and ordered reunification services for petitioner. In September 2007, the juvenile court conducted a contested combined 6 and 12-month review hearing on the community services agency’s recommendation to terminate petitioner’s reunification services as to all six children. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner petitions this court for continued reunification services but does not explain how the juvenile court erred in terminating them. Consequently, the 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.