Filed 8/15/22 Steven P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

STEVEN P.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE 

COUNTY,

Respondent;

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

F084447

(Super. Ct. Nos. JJV073438A, 

JJV073438B)

OPINION

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. John P. 

Bianco, Judge.

Steven P., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and DeSantos, J.
2

Steven P. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.452)1from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a 12-month review hearing 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f))2 on May 11, 2022, terminating reunification 

services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for August 31, 2022, as to his now 

seven-year-old son, S.P., and five-year-old son, D.P. In his writ petition signed on 

May 23, 2022, father advised that he was incarcerated in Wisconsin and expected to be 

released on July 5, 2022, at which time he would like custody of his children. We 

conclude father’s writ petition fails to comply with the content requirements of rule 8.452 

and dismiss it as facially inadequate for review.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

In March 2021, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency)

received an immediate referral that then six-year-old S.P. had a black eye. A social 

worker and deputy from the sheriff’s office met with mother, K.S. (mother). She said 

S.P. sustained the black eye from a fall while he was with his aunt. She denied abusing 

her children and said she sometimes consumed alcohol. The children appeared to be 

slightly malnourished and fatigued. The social worker tried to engage the children but 

they seemed to be nonverbal. Both children were very dirty and appeared not to have 

bathed for a long time. The house was also very dirty and mother was slurring her speech 

as if under the influence of some substance. She refused to spot test and was arrested for 

being under the influence of a controlled substance and possession of methamphetamine. 

The children were taken into protective custody and placed in a foster home. 

The following day, the foster mother reported the children had a lot of marks and 

bruises on their backs, buttocks, and legs. S.P. had scratches on his hand and face near 

his eye, a huge bruise/scrape mark covering at least half of his buttock, a one-inch 

1 Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

2 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

bruise/scrape mark on his arm and upper wrist area which was dark red and faded black 

in color, a circular bruise around his knee approximately the size of a quarter, what 

appeared to be a cigarette burn on his back which exposed his flesh, and scars and older 

wounds on his back. The children had severe speech impediments but the foster mother 

was able to understand some of what they said. They disclosed seeing their mother being 

beaten by an uncle and made punching motions to their faces to demonstrate.

Mother claimed the marks on S.P.’s back were the result of scabies but she could 

not prove it. She denied abusing the children, stating they fell and got “ ‘owies.’ ” 

Father was incarcerated in Wisconsin with an anticipated release date in 

July 2022. He told the social worker he had been “hard into drugs” around October and 

November 2019. His drugs of choice were methamphetamine and heroin. He completed 

an alcohol and other drug program but did not provide any details. He and mother had no 

history of child welfare intervention and he believed she was a good mother. 

The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children in 

June 2021, finding mother physically abused them, causing serious physical harm, and 

neglected and failed to protect them and that father was incarcerated and could not 

arrange for their care. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b)(1) & (g).) The court ordered mother to 

participate in reunification services but denied father services under section 361.5, 

subdivision (e) because of the length of his incarceration. 

Mother participated in her services plan and made progress. She was pregnant and 

due to deliver in April 2022 but would not identify the father. She took responsibility for 

her drug use but continued to deny any domestic violence and physical abuse. She 

accused the foster parent of telling the children to talk about abuse. The children were 

happy in their placement. S.P. stated, referring to the foster mother, “I like her, mom, 

I’m happy, stay at this house.” He said he was worried that mother was “gonna knock on 
4

the door and say I want my kids back.” The three-year-old stated, “I don’t like seeing 

her, her hurt me.” They were assured that mother did not know where they were living. 

In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the 

juvenile court continue mother’s reunification services and modify mother’s services plan 

to include a child abuse intervention program. If she failed to reunify, mother wanted the 

children placed with their paternal grandmother in Wisconsin. Father agreed with that 

plan. The paternal grandmother and the children’s foster parent were willing to adopt the 

children if reunification failed. 

At the six-month review hearing in January 2022, the juvenile court continued 

reunification services for mother, added child abuse intervention and a mental health 

assessment to her case plan and set a 12-month review hearing for May 11, 2022. 

In February 2022, the agency filed a modification petition under section 388,

asking the juvenile court to terminate visitation because of the children’s high-risk 

behavior. They hit and punched mother, destroyed toys, stomped on the food mother 

brought, ran in and out of the visitation rooms, ran through the office, and attempted to 

leave the building. They brought up past abuse and stated they did not want to visit 

mother. At a hearing in April 2022, the juvenile court granted the agency’s request. 

The agency recommended the juvenile court terminate the mother’s reunification 

services at the 12-month review hearing. Although she completed her reunification 

services, she had not changed her behavior. She engaged in domestic violence with the 

uncle, which resulted in her sustaining a popped blood vessel in her eye. She also had his 

baby even though she denied being in a relationship with him. The baby was taken into 

protective custody. 

The agency also recommended the juvenile court discontinue the children’s video 

visits with father because it confused them and caused them to act out. During their first 

video visit in March 2022, the children did not know who father was and could be heard 
5

slamming chairs into the walls and doors. Afterward, D.P. kept saying, “ ‘that no my 

dad, uncle my dad and I hate him.’ ” S.P. went “ ‘nuts’ ” and kept asking if he had two 

uncles or two dads. 

On May 11, 2022, the juvenile court conducted a contested 12-month review 

hearing and heard testimony from the children’s therapists. The court terminated 

mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court also 

terminated father’s visits, finding visitation was detrimental to the children. Mother did 

not file a writ petition.

DISCUSSION

As a general proposition, a juvenile court’s rulings are presumed correct. 

(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) 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 to initiate writ proceedings. The purpose of such 

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).) 

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 are not required to independently review the 

record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Here, father does not argue the juvenile court erred in terminating mother’s 

reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. He merely requests 
6

placement of the children upon his release from custody. Since placement is an issue that 

must first be raised in the juvenile court and since father does not assert juvenile court 

error, his writ petition is inadequate for appellate review. Consequently, we dismiss it.

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).