Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review Super. Ct. Nos. JJV061602A & JJV061602B. Hugo J. Loza, Commissioner.
R.O., in pro. per., for Petitioner
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Carol E. Helding, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
Petitioner is the presumed father of I.O. and the alleged father of E.O., the subjects of this writ petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452).) The petition arises from a post-permanency plan review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3) at which respondent court set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan of legal guardianship. Petitioner seeks an order re-establishing visitation. We conclude his 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
I.O. and E.O. came to the attention of the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) in January 2007 when newborn, E.O., and his mother, M., tested positive for a controlled substance. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over E.O. and one-year-old, I.O., and ordered them placed in M.’s care under family maintenance. At the time, petitioner was incarcerated on a parole violation. Consequently, the court ordered family maintenance for him upon his release from custody.
M. did not file a writ petition.
In August 2007, at the review of family maintenance hearing (§ 364), the juvenile court terminated family maintenance for petitioner because, following his release from custody, he did not contact the agency or participate in any of his services. The court continued the children in family maintenance with M.
In January 2008, the agency took the children into protective custody and filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) alleging family maintenance had been ineffective in protecting the children because M. was not complying with court-ordered services. In addition, petitioner’s whereabouts were unknown. The juvenile court sustained the supplemental petition and ordered reunification services for M. only. Petitioner was granted visitation once a week for one hour.
In July 2008, at the six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e).), the juvenile court terminated M.’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Petitioner advised the court through his attorney he was leaving the area for a substantial period of time and requested a visit before he left. The court denied his request, finding it would be detrimental to the children. Two months later, petitioner was sentenced to four years in prison.
In October 2008, the children were placed with their maternal great-grandmother. At the section 366.26 hearing in November 2008, the juvenile court approved a permanent plan of placement with a relative with the goal of legal guardianship and set a post-permanency plan review hearing (§ 366.3) for April 2009.
At the review hearing in April 2009, the juvenile court, on the agency’s recommendation, set a section 366.26 hearing in August 2009 to establish a permanent plan of legal guardianship with the children’s maternal great-grandmother. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
California Rules of Court, rule 8.450-8.452 (rule) govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court and filing the appropriate documentation. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a).)
In this case, petitioner does not challenge the correctness of the juvenile court's setting order. Rather, he seeks visitation with his children. In effect, he is asking for a modification of the juvenile court's order issued in July 2008 denying him visitation. Requests to modify the juvenile court's orders must be made to the juvenile court by way of a section 388 petition rather than by writ petition. Consequently, we will dismiss the 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. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.