Filed 7/10/15 Julio V. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JULIO V.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KINGS 

COUNTY,

Respondent;

KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

F071567

(Super. Ct. No. 14JD0001)

OPINION

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jennifer Lee 

Giuliani, Judge.

Julio V., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Juliana F. Gmur, Deputy County Counsel, 

for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Smith, J.
2

Petitioner Julio V., in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ relief from the 

juvenile court’s order issued April 16, 2015, setting a Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 366.26 hearing1 as to his five-year-old son Gauge V. and three-year-old daughter

A.V.2 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450.) Julio asks this court to issue a writ directing the 

juvenile court to vacate the section 366.26 hearing and to remand the case for a hearing 

so that he can express his intentions to the juvenile court. Ultimately, he seeks 

reunification services, visitation and the return of the children to his custody. We

conclude Julio failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss the petition as 

inadequate for our review.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

In January 2014, then three-year-old Gauge and 23-month-old A.V. were taken 

into protective custody after their mother Jennifer was arrested for possessing 

methamphetamine. At the time, Julio was incarcerated on drug-related charges. He was 

expected to be released in September 2016. 

In March 2014, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for Jennifer but 

denied Julio services because he was incarcerated and the court determined that providing 

him services would be detrimental to the children. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).) 

The juvenile court provided Jennifer 12 months of reunification services. 

However, she made minimal progress. Meanwhile, Julio remained incarcerated. 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated.

2

Julio includes a third child, Ashlee G., as a subject of his writ petition. Ashlee is 

the half-sibling of Gauge and A.V. but is not Julio’s child. Thus, Julio does not have 

standing to include her in his writ petition and our opinion does not pertain to her.
3

In April 2015, at a contested 12-month review hearing the juvenile court 

terminated Jennifer’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Julio filed 

an extraordinary writ petition.3

DISCUSSION

The purpose of writ proceedings is to “provide for immediate writ review of 

meritorious issues subsumed within the order setting a section 366.26 hearing to ensure 

that the hearing is not infected with reversible error even before it commences.” (Joyce 

G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512.) Our review is limited to 

“issues competently raised in a timely writ petition.” (Ibid.) Thus, it is incumbent upon 

petitioner to raise specific issues and substantively address them. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) 

While we will liberally construe a petition in favor of finding it adequate for review, we 

will not independently review the record for possible error. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.452(a)(1); In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Julio does not argue that the juvenile court erred in setting the section 366.26 

hearing. He merely states that he would like the opportunity to gain custody of his 

children. Since Julio has not raised any claims of juvenile court error, we dismiss his writ 

petition as inadequate for our review.4

DISPOSITION

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

to this court.

 

3

Jennifer also filed a writ petition (F071454) which is pending before this court.

4 Though we dismiss Julio’s writ petition, he may nevertheless have a remedy in the 

juvenile court. Section 388 allows a parent to petition the juvenile court to modify its 

order denying reunification services should circumstances change such that it would be in 

the children’s best interest to do so.