Because We Know Legal

A blog devoted to posting the typical work of California's courts of appeals; the published "unpublished", yet uncitable decisions that the court makes on a daily basis.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Lonnie S. v. Sup. Ct.

Filed 11/30/05 Lonnie S. v. Sup. Ct. CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS



California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT








LONNIE S.,


Petitioner,


v.


THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY,


Respondent,


STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,


Real Party In Interest.




F048901



(Super. Ct. No. JUV507961)




O P I N I O N



THE COURT*


ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner.


Lonnie S., in pro. per., for Petitioner.


No appearance for Respondent.


Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Linda S. Macy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


-ooOoo-


Petitioner, in pro. per., seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38 (rule)) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing[1] as to his infant son A. We conclude his petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 38.1(a). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.


STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS


In December 2004, then one-month-old A. was released to the protective custody of the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) after he and his mother R. tested positive for various illicit drugs. At the time, petitioner was in prison.


The agency filed a dependency petition on A.’s behalf, which the juvenile court sustained. The court found petitioner to be A.’s biological father but denied petitioner reunification services. The court ordered services for R. and set the six-month review hearing for September 12, 2005. The agency placed A. in foster care.


Over the next six months, R. made no progress in her case plan. In addition, she did not visit A. at all despite opportunities to do so. Meanwhile, A. was in a loving, committed foster home with caretakers who wanted to adopt him.


The uncontested six-month review hearing was conducted on September 12, 2005. Petitioner and R. appeared through counsel who offered no evidence. The court terminated R.’s reunification services and set the section 366.26 hearing for December 19, 2005. This petition ensued.


DISCUSSION


Petitioner does not allege the juvenile court error. He merely informs this court that he will be released from custody by March of 2006 and asks that A. be released to his and his wife’s custody at that time.


Rule 38.1(a) specifies that the writ petition must set forth a summary of the grounds for the petition and be accompanied by points and authorities. (Rule 38.1(a)(1)(D) & (a)(3).) The points and authorities must inform the reviewing court of the issue(s) presented, reference the factual support for them in the record and offer argument and authorities that assist the court in resolving the issues. (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.) While this court will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its sufficiency, the petition must contain an assertion of juvenile court error.


In this case, petitioner fails to assert any error on the part of the juvenile court and we will not independently review the record for possible errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Accordingly, we must dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for appellate review.


DISPOSITION


The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.


Courtesy of California Legal Resource Directory, a source for providers and consumers of legal resources. Because we know legal.


Vista Lawyers are available and standing by to help you.


*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Gomes, J.


[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home