ANDRE v. KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

Petitioner in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452 (rule 8.452) from the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested 24–month review hearing terminating his reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 ¹ hearing as to his three and two-year-old daughters, I. and U. We conclude his 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 June 2009, then 16–month–old I. and 4–week–old U. were taken into protective custody by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) because petitioner and the children's mother, Della, engaged in violence and abused drugs.   In addition, petitioner suffers from mental illness.

In August 2009, the juvenile court adjudged the children dependents pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and set the dispositional hearing for September.   Meanwhile, petitioner was arrested for making terrorist threats to one of the social workers.   He pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to two years in prison.   At dispositional hearings in September and November 2009, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for Della and petitioner respectively.   The children were placed in foster care.

In March and May 2010, the juvenile court conducted six-month review hearings as to Della and petitioner respectively.   The court terminated Della's reunification services but continued petitioner's services to the 12–month review hearing which it set for August 2010.   Meanwhile, in July, he was released from prison.

In its report for the 24–month review hearing, the department recommended that the juvenile court terminate petitioner's reunification services because, although he completed some services, he continued to test positive for drugs and he demonstrated poor parenting skills during visitation.

In June 2011, the juvenile court conducted a contested 24–month review hearing.   Petitioner testified, acknowledging he failed to comply with his services plan.   However, he declared his love for his children and his desire to be their father.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court terminated petitioner's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan.   This petition ensued.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that he completed several unspecified classes and has only seven to complete.   He believes he was wronged because his children need to be with him.   Other than these two assertions, he does not explain how the juvenile court erred in terminating his reunification services.

DISPOSITION

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

FOOTNOTES

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.