Opinion
F074524
01-11-2017
VICTORIA B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Victoria B., in pro. per. for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 11CEJ300235-2, 11CEJ300235-3, 11CEJ300235-4)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Mary Dolas, Judge. Victoria B., in pro. per. for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
Victoria B., in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court's dispositional orders denying her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to her now 18-year-old daughter R.T., 16-year-old daughter M.T. and three-year-old son Ronnie. We conclude Victoria failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss her petition as facially inadequate for our review.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In June 2016, Fresno police officers placed a protective hold on then 17-year-old R.T., 15-year-old M.T. and two-year-old Ronnie after Victoria made statements about harming herself and was involuntarily hospitalized. R.T. and M.T. stated they did not want to be in their mother's care because of her substance abuse and unstable lifestyle. The Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) placed the children together in foster care.
The juvenile court detained the children pursuant to a dependency petition filed by the department and adjudged them dependent children under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect).
The department recommended the juvenile court deny Victoria reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) because of her "extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol" and resistance to prior court-ordered treatment. According to the department, Victoria began using methamphetamine in 2006 and was able to maintain periods of sobriety. In 2010 and 2012, she participated in court-ordered substance abuse treatment as part of a voluntary maintenance program through the department. In 2014, she was ordered to participate in intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment. Despite her participation in these three programs, she continued to use methamphetamine up to and even after the children were removed in June 2016.
In October 2016, the juvenile court conducted a contested dispositional hearing on the department's recommendation to deny Victoria reunification services. Victoria testified that she used methamphetamine in February, June and August 2016, but that the children were not in her care on those dates. She entered Spirit of Women, an inpatient substance abuse treatment program, in August 2016, and expected to complete the program in February 2017. Upon completion, she hoped to get transitional housing through Spirit of Women or WestCare, another substance abuse program, or through the Poverello House and take courses at the community college. Ultimately, she hoped to start her own small business. As to what was different this time around, she now had a family support system and was not trying to attain sobriety just to get the department "out of [her] life."
Victoria also testified that she actually completed four substance abuse treatment programs and each time performed well.
R.T. and M.T. addressed the court and expressed their feelings about reunifying with Victoria. They stated that Victoria relapsed every time she was no longer under the department's supervision. They did not believe they would benefit from reunifying with her. R.T. stated, "We [just can't] do it [anymore]. We don't believe it."
The juvenile court denied Victoria reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), finding she had not met her burden of proving reunification would serve the children's best interests. The court also denied reunification services to the two fathers involved and set a section 366.26 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) authorizes the juvenile court to deny a parent reunification services if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the parent "has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court's attention ...." In fact, the court is required to deny such a parent reunification services unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that reunification would serve the child's best interest. (§ 361.5, subd. (c).)
Victoria does not dispute that subdivision (b)(13) of section 361.5 applies to her or argue that providing her reunification services would serve the best interest of her children. Instead, she asks for the opportunity to show that she has changed.
" 'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) California Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452 set forth guidelines pertaining to extraordinary writ petitions. The purpose of these writ petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court's orders and findings issued at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l) (4).)
All rule references are to the California Rules of Court. --------
Rule 8.452 sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition. It requires the petitioner to set forth legal arguments with citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with the dictate of rule 8.452(a)(1), we liberally construe writ petitions in favor of their adequacy, recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law. Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least articulate a claim of error and support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its content and we will not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Victoria does not contend the juvenile court's rulings were error; she merely asks for an opportunity to reunify with her children. Thus, her petition lacks the essential component (i.e., claim of juvenile court error), rendering it inadequate in content under the rule. Consequently, we dismiss her petition.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.