Filed 12/29/23 N.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

N.P.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED 

COUNTY,

Respondent;

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

F086941

(Super. Ct. Nos. 22JP-00098-A, 

22JP-00098-B, 22JP-00098-C)

OPINION

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; extraordinary writ. Donald J. Proietti, Judge.

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

No appearance for Respondent.

Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, 

for Real Party in Interest.

-ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.
2.

N.P. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of 

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

review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f))2terminating her reunification 

services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for January 18, 2024, as to her children R.S. 

(born January 2015), A.S. (born January 2016), and G.S. (born February 2017) 

(collectively the children). Mother seeks a writ directing the juvenile court to return the 

children to her custody or provide reunification services and visitation. We conclude 

mother’s petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 

regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Initial Removal

In August 2022, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) received a 

referral alleging general neglect and physical abuse of the children by mother. An 

agency social worker responded to mother’s home and spoke with law enforcement. The 

children were found alone at the home by law enforcement after there were reports of 

domestic violence between mother and their stepmother, E.P. (stepmother). The social 

worker observed physical marks, scratches, or bruises on each of the children’s bodies, 

and R.S. had circular marks on his back that were layered and patterned. The children 

disclosed witnessing domestic violence between mother and stepmother, and they also 

described how mother and stepmother inflicted physical abuse on a regular basis with 

belts. Mother denied that the children were ever physically disciplined, and she provided 

no explanation for the visible injuries to R.S.

The children were placed into protective custody by law enforcement on 

August 17, 2022. On August 18, 2022, the agency filed an original petition alleging the 

1 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3.

children were described by section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (g). The petition 

alleged the children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm inflicted 

nonaccidentally by mother. The petition further alleged that mother failed to adequately 

protect the children from ongoing domestic violence in the home between mother and 

stepmother. The whereabouts of the children’s presumed father, C.S. (father), were 

unknown. On August 22, 2022, the juvenile court conducted a continued detention 

hearing where it ordered the children detained, and it set a jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing for September 29, 2022.

Jurisdiction and Disposition

The agency’s report on jurisdiction and disposition recommended that the 

allegations in the petition be found true and family reunification services be provided to 

mother and father. The children were placed together in a resource family home, and 

they confirmed their previous reports of physical abuse and domestic violence in the 

home by mother and stepmother. Mother admitted to spanking the children with her 

hand or belt for discipline, but she claimed that she never intended to hurt the children. 

She continued to deny that there was any domestic violence in the home between her and 

stepmother. Father was located by the agency, and he was currently homeless.

A continued jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on October 20, 2022, 

with mother and father present and represented by counsel. Stepmother was also present, 

and mother’s oral request to elevate stepmother to a presumed parent was denied. All 

parties submitted on the agency’s recommendation. The juvenile court found the 

allegations in the petition true and ordered family reunification services for both parents. 

As part of her case plan, mother was ordered to participate in domestic violence 

counseling, parenting classes, and an anger management program. Supervised visitation 

was ordered between mother and the children at no less than once per month, and a 

six-month review hearing was set for April 6, 2023.
4.

Family Reunification Period

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

juvenile court continue family reunification services for mother and father. Mother was 

in compliance with the objectives of her case plan. She completed a 14-week domestic 

violence support group in February 2023 and a domestic violence/anger management 

program in March 2023. Mother was also participating in a parenting class with the 

stepmother. She reported that there would no longer be arguing or yelling between her 

and the stepmother, and they both had respect for each other now. In March 2023, 

mother’s supervised visitation increased to weekly, and she engaged in activities with the 

children during her visits. At the review hearing held on April 6, 2023, the juvenile court 

continued family reunification services and set the 12-month review hearing for 

August 3, 2023.

The agency’s report for the 12-month review hearing recommended termination of 

mother and father’s family reunification services. On March 27, 2023, mother indicated 

that her and stepmother were back together after a brief separation. Mother began 

participating in individual domestic violence counseling on March 28, 2023, and the 

appointments occurred over the phone. In April 2023, mother intended to move in with 

her father because of “issues” in her relationship with stepmother. She informed the 

social worker that their current separation was due to stepmother trying to physically 

fight her whenever mother tried to discuss the stepmother’s spending at a casino. Mother 

stopped participating in her services in May 2023 because she was trying to locate a new 

home.

On July 9, 2023, law enforcement received reports that mother and stepmother 

were engaging in domestic violence. The report alleged that mother was physically 

aggressive and vandalized the door of the residence. An additional report was made to 

the agency on July 19, 2023, which alleged constant fighting and abuse between mother 

and stepmother. Mother was dropped from her domestic violence counseling, and she 
5.

failed to contact the service provider to restart counseling. She denied the reports of 

recent domestic violence between her and stepmother, and she failed to provide specific 

answers about her last contact with stepmother.

Mother was scheduled to begin a new parenting class in July 2023, but she chose 

to enroll in a parenting class that was scheduled to begin in January 2024 due to her work 

schedule. The report also noted concerns that mother was unable to redirect the 

children’s unsafe behaviors during visitation. Mother cancelled five visits from 

March 2023 through August 2023 due to conflicts with her work schedule and living 

arrangements. On August 17, 2023, mother claimed she was living in San Jose for the 

past month, but she would not provide an address to the social worker. Mother reported 

that stepmother was arrested after two domestic violence incidents in May 2023. She 

also claimed that she obtained multiple restraining orders against stepmother, but law 

enforcement was unable to locate any such restraining orders.

A contested 12-month review hearing was held on September 26, 2023. Mother 

was present and testified that she was no longer in a relationship with stepmother, and she 

filed for a divorce. Mother explained that she was unable to attend services because she 

moved to another county and the classes conflicted with her work schedule. She testified 

that she was attending a parenting class via video once per week, recently started a class 

on discipline, and previously completed a few other parenting classes. Mother intended 

to remain in Santa Clara County, and she believed the children could be safely returned to 

her with an additional six months of reunification services.3

On cross-examination, mother testified that she had been stable and free from 

domestic violence for the past six months. Mother was unsure if there was an active 

restraining order, and she claimed the police report from July 9, 2023, was false. She 

3 The agency initially filed a motion to transfer the proceedings to Santa Clara 

County on June 23, 2023. However, the motion was eventually withdrawn on the date of 

the contested hearing.
6.

also testified that she last saw stepmother in April 2023, but she eventually acknowledged 

there were two other incidents where stepmother showed up at mother’s work in 

June 2023 Mother described how the children sometimes hit each other, and she 

admitted that exposure to domestic violence was partly to blame. She believed there was 

“so much” for her to learn, and she was “at the beginning” of working through the 

trauma.

In closing argument, counsel for the agency and children argued that there was no 

substantial probability that the children would be returned to mother’s care by the end of 

the 18-month period on February 17, 2024. Mother’s counsel argued that mother’s 

testimony provided sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to find that there was a 

substantial probability of return. After hearing argument from counsel, the court 

followed the agency’s recommendation to terminate reunification services. It did not 

believe that mother demonstrated a substantial probability that the children would be 

returned by the next review period. A section 366.26 hearing was set for January 18, 

2024.

DISCUSSION

Relevant Legal Principles and Standard of Review

At the 12-month review hearing, the juvenile court must order the return of the 

child to the physical custody of his or her parent unless it finds the return would create a 

substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being 

of the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) If the court does not return the child, it may 

continue the case for up to six months if there is a substantial probability the child will be 

returned to parental custody within 18 months from the time the child was initially 

removed. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) To find a substantial probability of return, the court 

must find the parent regularly visited the child, made significant progress in resolving the 

problems prompting the child’s removal, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to 

complete the objectives of the case plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection, and 
7.

well-being. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)–(C).) Otherwise, the court must terminate 

reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan for 

the child. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(4).) Before the court may terminate services and set a 

section 366.26 hearing, however, there must be clear and convincing evidence the agency

provided reasonable services to the parent. (§§ 361.5, subd. (a), 366.21, subd. (g)(4).)

We review the juvenile court’s findings and orders for substantial evidence, 

resolving all conflicts in favor of the court, and indulging in all legitimate inferences to 

uphold the court’s ruling. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378−1379.) 

Under this well-established standard, “we review the record in the light most favorable to 

the court’s determinations and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to 

support the findings and orders. [Citation.] ‘We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise 

independent judgment, but merely determine if there are sufficient facts to support the 

findings of the trial court.’ ” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 

688−689.) 

Mother bears the burden on appeal of establishing that the evidence was 

insufficient to support the juvenile court’s findings. (In re A.G. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 

994, 1001.) And the juvenile court’s order, “like any other judgment or order of a lower 

court, is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to 

support the order on matters as to which the record is silent.” (Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc.

(2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 88.)

On the issue of whether the court erred by failing to find a substantial probability 

of return existed, the question on appeal “becomes whether the appellant’s evidence was 

(1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of such a character and weight as to leave 

no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding.’ ” (In re 

I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528, disapproved on other grounds by 

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1003, fn. 4.) “Put another way, the issue 

is ‘whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of [mother] as a matter of law.’ ” 
8.

(Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees’ Assn. (2012) 205 

Cal.App.4th 960, 966.)

The Extraordinary Writ Petition

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 mother did here, file an 

extraordinary writ petition in this court on Judicial Council form JV–825 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 findings and orders 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, mother’s petition is inadequate in presenting a claim of error. She indicated 

on page 2 of the preprinted “Petition for Extraordinary Writ” form (JV-825) that the 

juvenile court’s order was erroneous on the grounds that she was in compliance with her 

case plan, all family reunification services were not provided, and reports were biased 

due to conflicts of interest. Under the summary of factual basis for the petition, mother 

states: 

“When asking social worker if [I] can reschedule visits no 

accommodations were made and visits were just cancelled. Request to 

transfer case to [S]anta [C]lara was not covered fully in court prior to 

12 month hearing. Conflic[t]s of interest between [s]ocial [w]orkers [a]nd 
9.

[a]ttorneys and petitioner. [U]nprofessionalism. Social worker would 

often hang up on me. Not all services were offered.”

Mother did not provide any context from which this court could construe an 

alleged error by citing to relevant facts in the appellate record or any legal authority. 

Nowhere in the petition does mother assert that the juvenile court erred in finding it 

would be detrimental to return the children to her custody. Nor does she challenge the 

findings underlying the court’s order terminating reunification services. She does not, for 

example, contend the reunification services offered by the agency were not reasonable. 

Nor does she argue the court should have continued reunification services because there 

was a substantial probability the children could be returned to her custody after another 

period of reunification efforts. 

A party’s “conclusory presentation, without pertinent argument or an attempt to 

apply the law to the circumstances of this case, is inadequate,” and the contention will be 

found by the appellate court to have been abandoned. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles

(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) Without citation to authority or to the record, or any 

discussion supporting her conclusory statements, any challenge to the juvenile court’s 

findings that return of the children would be detrimental, reasonable services were

provided by the agency, and there was not a substantial probability of return by the 

18-month review hearing must be deemed abandoned. (See Dills v. Redwoods 

Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 [appellate court has no obligation 

to “develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) Consequently, she failed to raise a 

claim of reversible error. Therefore, her petition does not comply with rules 8.450

through 8.452 and is inadequate for appellate review.

At oral argument, mother made several complaints regarding her social worker 

and alleged conflicts of interests. Mother also claimed statements in the social worker’s 

reports were inaccurate, and she reiterated the comments in her petition. However, she 

still failed to support these claims of error with legal argument or citation to the record as 
10.

required. Although we are not required to do so, we have reviewed the record and find 

sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s decision to terminate mother’s family 

reunification services. Accordingly, we would find no error in this case were we to 

review the merits of the court’s rulings.

The services set forth in mother’s case plan were domestic violence counseling, 

parenting classes, and anger management. Mother completed domestic violence group 

counseling and anger management through the agency’s referrals. However, mother did 

not complete the parenting program offered by the agency because of alleged conflicts 

with her work schedule, and she was scheduled to begin another program in 

January 2024. Mother also stopped attending her over the phone individual counseling 

for domestic violence without a valid excuse.

Reunification is a collaborative effort and a parent is presumed capable of 

complying with a reasonable case plan. (In re Christina L. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 404, 

415.) The parent is responsible for communicating with the agency and participating in 

the reunification process. (In re Raymond R. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 436, 441.) If mother 

felt during the reunification period that her services or visitation were inadequate, she 

“had the assistance of counsel to seek guidance from the juvenile court in formulating a 

better plan.” (Christina L., at p. 416.)

The agency provided mother with an opportunity to reunify with the children by 

providing mother with several referrals for services in domestic violence, parenting, and 

anger management to address the domestic violence and physical abuse in the home. The 

fact that mother and stepmother continued to engage in domestic violence after her 

completion of group counseling and a separate program for domestic violence and anger 

management is reflective of mother’s lack of reasonable effort as opposed to the 

agency’s. Furthermore, the only visits missed were cancelled at mother’s request, and the 

record does not indicate that make-up visits were either requested or necessary under the 
11.

circumstances. Thus, mother has failed to show the agency’s implementation of her case

plan and efforts to assist her in complying with it were unreasonable. 

Based upon the record before us, we would conclude substantial evidence supports 

the juvenile court’s findings and order. However, we dismiss mother’s writ petition 

because it fails to comport with rule 8.452. 

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).