Opinion
F063703
01-25-2012
S.R., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.
S.R., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Jason G. Chu, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. Nos. JJV064155A, JJV064155B & JJV064155C)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Franson, J.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
S.R., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, and Jason G. Chu, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
S.R. (mother) in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's order denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her three- and four-year-old children. Mother does not allege any error by the juvenile court. At most, she checks boxes on her form petition requesting reunification services as well as the return of her children. Because mother's petition does not satisfy the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, we will dismiss her petition.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Mother has a history of extensive and chronic substance abuse and failing to provide for her children. As a result, she first lost custody of them in 2009. Mother did complete, however, court-ordered substance abuse treatment and counseling so that in 2010 she regained custody and the juvenile court terminated its dependency jurisdiction over the children.
Fourteen months later, in October 2011, mother was arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance. She had resumed using drugs earlier in 2011 and was using approximately once a week. She also left drugs and drug paraphernalia in a room to which the children had access.
Consequently, the juvenile court once again exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children and removed them from parental custody. This time, however, real party in interest, Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency, recommended the court deny mother services due to mother's extensive drug abuse history and the fact she resisted the prior court-ordered drug treatment within a three-year period before the filing of the new dependency petition. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13).)
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) authorizes a juvenile court to deny a parent reunification services when it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-order 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.
At a November 2011 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court accepted an offer of proof that mother was once again participating in services. There was no clear and convincing evidence, however, that reunification services would be in the children's best interest. (§ 361.5, subd. (c).) As a result, the juvenile court denied mother reunification services and set a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan (§ 366.26) for the children.
Section 361.5, subdivision (c) provides that the court shall not order reunification services for a parent described in section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) unless the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the child's best interest.
--------
DISCUSSION
The purpose of writ proceedings, such as this, is to facilitate review of a juvenile court's order setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).) The court's decision is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to petitioner to raise one or more claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. This court will not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
As previously mentioned, mother failed to raise any claim of juvenile court error in her petition. The mere fact that, in her petition, mother requested services or custody does not amount to a claim of error. Also, given the absence of evidence that services for mother would be in the children's best interests, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (c).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed as facially inadequate. This opinion is immediately final as to this court.