Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 94163-1
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party In Interest.
No appearance for Respondent.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
OPINION
Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450 & 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing as to her children, P., D., L. and C. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In November 2006, the juvenile court ordered then 14-year-old P., 12-year-old D., 10-year-old L. and 4-year-old C. removed from petitioner’s custody because of her drug use and assumed dependency jurisdiction. The court ordered a plan of reunification for petitioner, which included drug treatment. However, she failed to comply and, at a contested 12-month review hearing in August 2007, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to consider permanent plans for the children. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner petitions this court for another chance to regain custody of her children. However, she does not explain how the juvenile court erred in terminating her reunification services. Consequently, the petition fails to comport with the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition as set forth in rule 8.452 and precludes any meaningful appellate review.
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.) Because petitioner failed to comply with rule 8.452, her petition is inadequate for review and requires dismissal. (Rule 8.452(a)(3).)
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.