Opinion
A157023
07-19-2019
S.S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEL NORTE COUNTY, Petitioner; DEL NORTE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al. Real Parties 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. JVSQ 19-6010)
In this juvenile writ proceeding, S.S. (father) seeks extraordinary relief from the juvenile court order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code with respect to his two young children, J.S. (born in 2017) and D.S. (born in 2019). While a writ petition in this context must be "liberally construed," it is still required to include a summary of the significant facts and identify contested legal points with citation to legal authority and argument. (California Rules of Court, rules 8.452(a) & 8.452(b) ; see Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583 (Glen C.) [the writ petition "must, at a minimum, 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"].)
All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
None of these necessary elements were provided in this case. Rather, father's attorney simply indicated in the petitions that the juvenile court's orders setting permanency planning hearings for the minors were not erroneous given father's absence and failure to engage in services for a number of months prior to the setting hearing. Counsel did not request we perform a Wende-type review. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see also Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Nor could he. (Glen C., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 580 [no constitutional right to Anders/Wende review in juvenile writ proceedings]; see In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 843-844 (Phoenix H.); In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 981-982, 994.) Under the circumstances, the petitions should not have been filed. (Glen C., at p. 582 [counsel "are not required to file a petition which has no merit"]; Cresse S. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 947, 956; see Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (c) [counsel should maintain only those actions or proceedings "as appear to him or her legal or just"].) Since the petitions are procedurally deficient, we will summarily deny them. (Rule 8.452(h)(1) [summary denial permissible in "exceptional circumstances"]; see Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501.)
This court, on June 19, 2019, sent a letter to father, providing copies of the writ petitions and allowing him a period of time to submit his own response. (See Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 843-844.) Nothing was received. --------
DISPOSITION
The order to show cause previously issued in this matter is withdrawn as improvidently granted and the petitions are summarily denied.
/s/_________
Sanchez, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Margulies, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Banke, J.