Opinion
F076072
11-08-2017
V.S., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
V.S., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16CEJ300169-1, 16CEJ300169-2, 16CEJ300169-3, 16CEJ300169-4 & 16CEJ300169-5)
OPINION
THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Gary Green, Commissioner. V.S., 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 Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Petitioner V.S. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court's orders issued at an uncontested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) terminating his reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to his five children (the children), now ranging in age from six to 16 years. Father seeks custody of his children or reinstatement of reunification services and visitation. We conclude father failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss his petition as facially inadequate for review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.)
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Rule references are to the California Rules of Court. --------
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In September 2016, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from parental custody pursuant to an original petition, alleging their mother's methamphetamine use and erratic behavior and father's failure to protect them from it placed them at a substantial risk of harm. The court ordered the parents to participate in reunification services and set a six-month review hearing for February 2017. The Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) placed the four older children in foster care and the youngest child with a paternal relative.
In February 2017, approximately a week before the six-month review hearing, the department filed a modification petition asking the juvenile court to terminate the mother's reunification services because she did not visit the children or initiate reunification services and the department's attempts to contact her were unsuccessful.
The juvenile court granted the department's modification petition, found the mother's whereabouts were unknown and terminated her reunification services. The court ordered father's services to continue and set the 12-month review hearing for August 2017.
Father consistently visited the children over the ensuing months and participated in some services. However, he failed to make significant progress in resolving the problems that necessitated the children's removal from the home. Most notably, he remained in contact with their mother, in violation of a restraining order, and allowed her to have contact with them. Consequently, the department, in its report for the hearing, recommended the juvenile court terminate father's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan.
In August 2017, father appeared with his attorney who objected to the department's recommendations but did not offer any evidence or argue the case. The mother did not personally appear. The court followed the department's recommendations.
DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a juvenile court's rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, absent a showing of error, this court will not disturb them.
A parent seeking review of the juvenile court's orders from the setting hearing must, as father did here, file an extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of writ proceedings is to allow this court to review the juvenile court's orders to identify any errors before the section 366.26 hearing occurs.
Rule 8.452 requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made. It also requires the petitioner to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).)
Aside from information identifying the children as the subjects of the petition and check marks indicating the remedy father seeks, father's writ petition is blank, including item number six, where he was required to identify the grounds on which the juvenile court erred.
When the petitioner does not allege legal error, as occurred here, there is nothing for this court to review. Consequently, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules of Court.