M.C., Petitioner, v. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

O P I N I O N

Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452)) from respondent court's order issued at a contested 18-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 ¹ hearing as to her four children.   We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452.   Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

In September 2008, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took petitioner's two daughters, S. and H., and two sons, C. and A., into protective custody because of petitioner's substance abuse.   The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction and ordered petitioner to participate in parenting, anger management and domestic violence classes, complete mental health and substance abuse evaluations, submit to random drug testing, and visit the children under supervision.   The court also ordered services for Mario, the father of then two-year-old C. The children were initially placed together in a foster home pending approval of a relative for placement.

Over the course of the ensuing year, petitioner made significant progress in her court-ordered services.   She completed a parenting program, participated in intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment and anger management, and attended individual therapy.   She tested negative on the majority of her drug screens.   She tested positive for opiates on occasion, but provided the department a prescription for opiate-based pain medication.   Also, during this interim period, the children were placed together in the home of a former neighbor and Joshua, the father of then three-year-old H. appeared and was participating in services.   In October 2009, petitioner gave birth to a son, B., who remained in her custody.

At the 12-month review hearing in December 2009, the juvenile court terminated Joshua's services and placed H. in his custody under family maintenance.   The court continued petitioner and Mario's reunification services and set the 18-month review hearing for March 2010.

In March 2010, the department filed its report recommending the juvenile court terminate petitioner's reunification services.   The department explained that it was unable to progress to unsupervised visitation because petitioner continued to test positive for opiates and had not provided a current prescription for its use.   In addition, she failed to provide proof of Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous meeting attendance as she was instructed to do in September 2009.   Additionally, in early March 2010, petitioner left then four-month-old B. in the care of her male roommate overnight.   The roommate was unable to locate petitioner during the night and she did not respond to his telephone calls.   As a result, B. was placed in the care of his maternal aunt.

At separate hearings in March 2010, the juvenile court continued the 18-month review hearing and terminated dependency proceedings as to H. The court granted Joshua sole physical custody of her.

In August 2010, the juvenile court conducted the contested 18-month review hearing.   In its addendum report for the hearing, the department continued to recommend that the court terminate petitioner's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.   The department reported that petitioner was drug testing less often and continued to test positive for opiates without proof that she had a prescription for an opioid.   By this time, two of the children were still living with their former neighbor and the third was living with his paternal aunt.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated petitioner's reunifications services as to S., C., and A. and set a section 366.26 hearing.   This petition ensued.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner acknowledges her responsibility for the removal of her children and contends she has changed.   To that end, she lists the court-ordered programs she has completed and claims sobriety since September 2008.   In addition, she asserts she is seeking employment and is engaged to marry a military serviceman with a graduate degree.   She asks for another chance to reunify with her children and requests that they be returned to her custody.   Notably, however, she does not claim the juvenile court erred in rendering any of its findings and orders at the 18-month review hearing.   Consequently, we decline to review the petition in light of the following.

The premise of a petition for extraordinary writ is that the juvenile court erred in ruling at the hearing at which the section 366.26 hearing was set. (§ 366.26, subd. (l )(1);  rule 8.450(b).)  Petitioner identifies no error.   Further, we do not conduct an independent review of dependency proceedings.   (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.)   Consequently, absent an assertion of error, we are compelled to dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for appellate review.   Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition.

DISPOSITION

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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

FN1. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated..  FN1. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.