From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosmarie S. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 25, 2008
No. F055183 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2008)

Opinion


ROSEMARIE S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, Respondent MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. F055183 California Court of Appeal, Fifth District July 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review Ct. No. 27620. Harry L. Jacobs, Commissioner.

Rosemarie S., in pro per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

James N. Fincher, County Counsel and James B. Tarhalla, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT

Before Levy, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Dawson, J.

OPINION

Petitioner in pro. per. seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) (rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court issued at a contested 12-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her five children. We conclude her 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

In February 2007, the social services agency (agency) removed petitioner’s four sons and daughter, ranging in age from three to eleven years, from her custody because she and Jerry, the father of the three youngest children, used drugs. The agency placed the children together with extended family members.

In April 2007, the juvenile court exercised dependency jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for petitioner and Jerry. However, they failed to comply. Consequently, at a contested 12-month review hearing in April 2008, the juvenile court terminated their reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing as to all five children. This petition ensued.

DISCUSSION

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, 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.)

Petitioner claims error because “[Jerry] did not finish his outpatient.” (Sic.) To the extent petitioner attempts to raise legal error on behalf of Jerry, she lacks standing to do so. With respect to herself, petitioner fails to set forth a claim of error. Consequently, her petition fails to comport with rule 8.452 and is therefore inadequate on its face.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.


Summaries of

Rosmarie S. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Jul 25, 2008
No. F055183 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2008)
Case details for

Rosmarie S. v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:ROSEMARIE S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 25, 2008

Citations

No. F055183 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2008)