IN RE: ANDREA A. and MANUEL A. (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

R. A., appearing in propria persona, has petitioned this court for extraordinary writ relief from an order of the juvenile court setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.¹  We summarily deny the petition because petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of ²

Background

Petitioner is the mother of nine-year-old Andrea A. and seven-year-old Manuel A. In July 2010 the juvenile court declared Andrea A. and Manuel A. to be dependent children of the court. (§ 300.)   It removed them from petitioner's custody and ordered that they be placed in the custody of the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA).   HSA was ordered to provide family reunification services to petitioner.

The juvenile court stated that its decision to remove the children from petitioner's custody was based on her “ongoing history of mental illness which limits her ability to provide appropriate care and supervision for the minors.”   The court found that petitioner “has been inconsistent in managing her mental illness and has failed to comply with treatment, including recommended medication regime.”

In November 2010 petitioner was evaluated by a clinical psychologist.   The psychologist reported as follows:  Petitioner “has a 19–year history of severe mental illness.”   She “has had several psychiatric hospitalizations due to psychosis and 2 attempted suicides.   Records indicate [she] was last in a psychiatric facility (hospitalized) on 9/23/10.”  “In her past hospitalizations, [petitioner] has been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Borderline Personality Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorders.   She currently appears to be suffering from Schizoaffective Disorder with Paranoid Features.”  “The paranoid features of her illness make it difficult for her to change or accept interventions.   Her prognosis is guarded.”   Petitioner's illness “impairs her ability to function as a parent and have appropriate judgment.   She has cognitive impairments including an inability to retain everyday information, difficulty interpreting common social situations and verbal information, and poor self-awareness, which is common in the chronic mentally ill.”

In January 2011 the juvenile court terminated family reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.   The court acted pursuant to HSA's recommendation.   In a status review report, an HSA social worker declared:  “[HSA] has determined that there is substantial risk to the children if they are returned to [petitioner] due to her mental illness.  [Petitioner] has not been able to demonstrate that she is able to make safe choices, that she is able to process information logically, and that she is mentally stable.”

Discussion

Rule 8.452(b)(1) provides that the petition must be accompanied by a memorandum providing “a summary of the significant facts, limited to matters in the record.”  “The memorandum must state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point and support each point by argument and citation of authority.”  (Rule 8.452(b)(2).)   The memorandum “must, at a minimum, adequately inform the court of the issues presented, point out the factual support for them in the record, and offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues.”  (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.)

In her summary of the factual basis for the petition, petitioner fails to set forth any facts in the record pertinent to the juvenile court's order setting a section 366.26 hearing.3  Nor does she provide any supporting points and authorities.   Petitioner asserts that she has “been taking [her] prescribed medications as told and ․ am very stable and feel good.  “ Petitioner claims that “people” have “reported to the system false information against [her].”  (Petition 2) She declares:  “I want the courts to ask them if they have visual evidence that they can provide to the courts and come forward and prove it to the courts and the judge in front of [petitioner] and testify the true [sic ] under oath and provide their so called evidence to the system and to their superiors․  I think that an investigation should be made on all these people reporting all these accussations [sic ] and bring them all in front of the lie detector and find out who these people are and confront them and ask them what is the problem they have to makeing [sic ] these reports against [petitioner].”

“Absent exceptional circumstances, the reviewing court must decide the petition on the merits by written opinion.”  (Rule 8.452(h)(1).)   Petitioner's failure to comply with rule 8.452 constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying the summary denial of her petition:  “Because of the intolerable burden that would otherwise be foisted on the Courts of Appeal, we deem the failure to tender and substantively to address a specific material issue or issues ․ to be ‘exceptional circumstances' ․ which excuse the court from reviewing and determining a petition on the merits.”  (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512;  see also Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 584 [court announced that, in the future, it intended to summarily deny petitions that fail to comply with the requirements of rule 8.452];  Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157–158 [where petition fails to meet the “threshhold requirements” of rule 8.452, it should be summarily denied].)

Disposition

The petition for extraordinary writ is summarily denied.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

We concur:

Superior Court County of Ventura

R.A. in pro per, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Leroy Smith, County Counsel, County of Ventura and Oliver G. Hess, Assistant County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code..  FN1. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

FN2. All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court..  FN2. All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

FN3. Petitioner filed two petitions.   One is dated January 28, 2011, and the other is dated February 8, 2011.   Both petitions were mailed to us in the same envelope.   The later dated petition is more complete and we deem it to supersede the earlier dated petition..  FN3. Petitioner filed two petitions.   One is dated January 28, 2011, and the other is dated February 8, 2011.   Both petitions were mailed to us in the same envelope.   The later dated petition is more complete and we deem it to supersede the earlier dated petition.

GILBERT, P.J. COFFEE, J. Taril Cody, Judge