Court Opinion

ID: 9942200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 18:02:55.586496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:49.688756
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/16/24 Sean N. 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

    SEAN N.,
                                                                                             F087353
           Petitioner,
                                                                              (Super. Ct. Nos. JJV069957C,
                    v.                                                                JJV069957D)

    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE
    COUNTY,                                                                               OPINION
           Respondent;

    TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN
    SERVICES AGENCY,

           Real Party in Interest.

                                                   THE COURT*
         ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Sara Bratsch,
Judge.
         Sean N., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
         No appearance for Respondent.
         No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.
       Petitioner Sean N. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452)1 from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a six-month
review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e))2 terminating his reunification
services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for April 4, 2024, as to his children
Matthew N. and M.N. (collectively, the children). Father seeks a writ directing the
juvenile court to order that reunification services be continued, visitation be provided,
and the children be moved to the paternal grandmother’s home. We conclude father’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
       These dependency proceedings were initiated in December 2022 when the Tulare
County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) received a referral shortly after the
children were born. The children were twin boys, and they both tested positive for
amphetamines and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at the time of their birth. The children’s
mother, Samantha E. (mother), admitted to ongoing substance use during her pregnancy,
and she did not receive any prenatal care. Mother informed father that the children were
his, but he wanted a paternity test to be certain. There were ongoing dependency
proceedings involving G.M., a sibling of the children, and mother was not compliant with
her case plan.
       The agency filed an original petition alleging the children were described by
section 300, subdivisions, (b)(1), (g), and (j). The petition alleged the children were at
substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm due to mother’s substance abuse
problem. The petition further alleged that mother’s whereabouts were unknown, and

1      All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
2      All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                             2.
siblings of the children were previously neglected as a result of mother’s substance abuse
in 2016 and 2020.
       At the detention hearing held on December 13, 2022, mother and father were not
present, and the children were ordered detained from mother’s custody. A jurisdiction
and disposition hearing was set for January 19, 2023. The children were placed in a
resource family home, and the care provider for their dependent sibling, G.M., was
unable to take placement. Mother had not provided any relatives for placement
consideration, and both father and G.M.’s father had been told by mother that they were
the children’s father.
       On January 19, 2023, father and G.M.’s father were both present for the
jurisdiction and disposition hearing, and they were appointed counsel as alleged fathers.
Paternity testing was ordered for father and G.M.’s father. The allegations of the petition
were found true, and the disposition hearing was continued to March 16, 2023. At the
next hearing, an additional continuance of disposition was granted because the paternity
results were still pending. Father was informed that he was determined to be the
children’s biological father on March 29, 2023. He wanted custody of the children, and
he was willing to participate in services.
       At the continued disposition hearing held on May 4, 2023, father was present, and
the juvenile court found him to be the biological father of the children. The agency
recommended that father be provided family reunification services, and father’s counsel
acknowledged that he was not entitled to custody of the children as a biological father.
The juvenile court ordered family reunification services and supervised visitation for
father. No family reunification services were ordered for mother pursuant to
section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (11), and (13). A six-month review hearing was set for
November 2, 2023.
       In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the
juvenile court terminate reunification services for father and a section 366.26 hearing be

                                             3.
set. Father was not consistent in his visitation with the children, and he failed to
substantially comply with the requirements of his case plan. He was participating in his
parenting classes, but he did not register for random drug testing or complete a substance
abuse assessment. In May 2023, father was arrested for possession of methamphetamine
during a traffic stop. Father wanted the children placed with the paternal grandmother,
who was participating in the resource family approval process.
       The children remained placed with their same care providers, and they were
receiving medical treatment for chronic breathing problems. Both children were
participating in physical and occupational therapy, and a referral was made to the Central
Valley Regional Center for both children. Their care providers were willing to provide a
permanent plan of adoption. A contested six-month review hearing was scheduled for
December 14, 2023, at father’s request. On December 12, 2023, the paternal
grandmother indicated that she was approved for placement through the resource family
approval process, and the social worker was waiting for confirmation.
       The contested six-month review hearing was held on December 14, 2023, and
mother, father, and care providers were present and represented by counsel. Father
testified on his own behalf, and his counsel argued that family reunification services
should be continued. After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court followed
the agency’s recommendation to terminate reunification services after finding that father
had not made substantive progress. A section 366.26 hearing was set for April 4, 2024.
                                       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 on Judicial Council form JV-825 to initiate writ
proceedings. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate court to achieve a

                                              4.
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, father’s petition is inadequate in presenting a claim of error. He indicated on
page 2 of the preprinted “Petition for Extraordinary Writ” form (JV-825) that the order
terminating his reunification services was erroneous because he was not properly
represented. He also requested that the trial court be directed to “move the children to the
home of the [p]aternal [g]randmother who has already been approved.” Father does not
provide any explanation as to how his counsel’s performance was deficient. There is also
no evidence that father or the paternal grandmother made a request for relative placement
to the juvenile court at the time of the disposition hearing.
       The petition provides no explanation as to how the juvenile court’s order
terminating his reunification services was erroneous. Nowhere in the petition does father
assert that the juvenile court erred in finding that he failed to make substantive progress
in his case plan. Nor does he challenge the findings underlying the court’s order
terminating reunification services. 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.)

                                              5.
       Without citation to authority or to the record, or any discussion supporting his
conclusory statements, any challenge to the juvenile court’s findings that return of the
children would be detrimental 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, he failed to raise a
claim of reversible error. Therefore, his petition does not comply with rules 8.450 and
8.452 and is inadequate for appellate review.
       Father 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.
Consequently, father’s writ petition is facially inadequate for appellate review. Further,
as a reviewing court, we do not independently review the appellate record for possible
errors. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) Therefore, we dismiss the petition.
                                       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).

                                              6.