Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review No. 05CEJ300162, Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.
R.A., in propria persona, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Janelle E. Kelley, Interim County Counsel and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
Petitioner, in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her three children. We will deny the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Petitioner has a long history of substance abuse (phencyclidine (PCP) and alcohol), which interferes with her ability to adequately care for her children. Consequently, in November 2007, petitioner’s three children, then 17, 12 and 3 years of age, were removed from her custody and placed under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
The department of social services (department) placed the children in the care of their maternal grandmother and recommended the juvenile court not provide petitioner reunification services because of her extensive, abusive and chronic use of drugs and failure to respond to treatment. Petitioner admitted abusing drugs and alcohol for many years. In addition, in 2003, she was convicted of being under the influence of a controlled substance for which she was referred for substance abuse treatment through the probation department. The probation department was unable to provide information with respect to her completion of treatment. Nevertheless, petitioner subsequently relapsed and tested positive for PCP. She entered an inpatient treatment program in early February 2008 but discharged herself within seven days of her admission. She entered another treatment program in early March 2008 but left the program three days later.
The department also advised the court it would not be in the children’s best interest to attempt reunification with petitioner because they did not have a significant bond with her and her prognosis for reunification was poor.
The matter of services was adjudicated at a contested dispositional hearing conducted in August 2008, a day before the 17-year-old’s birthday. Petitioner appeared represented by counsel who offered evidence petitioner was attending a parenting class, domestic violence counseling, and outpatient substance abuse treatment. Her attorney also argued it would serve the children’s best interest to reunify with their mother because the family had unresolved issues which had yet to be addressed and because placement with the grandmother was not a better alternative. Children’s counsel asked the court to deny petitioner services, adding that the two oldest children wanted no contact with petitioner.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court denied petitioner reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) (subdivision (b)(13)) and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan. The court also, over petitioner’s objection, ordered supervised visitation between petitioner and the two youngest children and suspended visitation with the oldest child pending input from his therapist. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends, without citation to legal authority or the appellate record, the juvenile court erred in denying her reunification services and reducing visitation with her children. She also argues the court erred in not allowing her to testify and advocate for herself. We find no error.
A lower court’s judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Consequently, an “appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error by an adequate record.” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) With respect to writ petitions challenging the setting of a section 366.26 hearing, California Rules of Court, 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, 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.)
To the extent petitioner argues the juvenile court erred in denying her reunification services under subdivision (b)(13), we conclude, on this record, there is no reason to reverse or modify the juvenile court’s denial order. Subdivision (b)(13), as it applies to petitioner, allows the juvenile court to withhold reunification services from a parent who has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought the child to the court’s attention. Once the juvenile court finds the parent is described by subdivision (b)(13), section 361.5, subdivision (c) prohibits the court from ordering reunification services unless the court finds reunification would serve the child’s best interest.
In this case, the juvenile court had sufficient evidence before it to find petitioner fell within the provisions of subdivision (b)(13) based on her history of drug use and resumption of drug use after either participating in or completing court-ordered substance abuse treatment following her 2003 conviction. Further, the evidence supported a conclusion reunification would actually pose a detriment to petitioner’s children rather than serve their best interests. The older children were very angry at petitioner and all three children had adjusted well to life with their grandmother. In light of the foregoing, we find no error in the juvenile court’s order denying petitioner reunification services.
With respect to visitation, petitioner merely asserts she “[wants] to have visitation.” In that the juvenile court’s visitation order allowed for visitation with the two youngest children, albeit reduced, petitioner’s assertion raises no claim of error. To the extent she challenges the court’s order suspending visitation with her oldest child, we find no abuse of discretion. At the time of the contested dispositional hearing, the oldest child was one day shy of achieving majority. Consequently, he was on the eve of being able to decide for himself if he wanted to visit petitioner, which according to his attorney, he did not.
As to reunification services and visitation, petitioner claims she was not given a “fair chance to explain because [she] didn’t get to testify.” “As a general rule, a party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court. [Citation.]” (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 411-412.) There is no indication in the record that petitioner asked to testify. Had she done so, the juvenile court could have addressed her request at the hearing. Since she did not, we conclude she waived her right to now complain about her lost opportunity. “Any other rule would ‘“‘permit a party to play fast and loose with the administration of justice by deliberately standing by without making an objection of which he is aware and thereby permitting the proceedings to go to a conclusion which he may acquiesce in, if favorable, and which he may avoid, if not.’” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 412.)
Moreover, in light of the evidence, as discussed above, there is no reason to believe the juvenile court would have ruled differently even if petitioner had testified. For all the reasons stated above, we find no error on this record.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.