PATRICIA v. TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

O P I N I O N

Patricia, petitioner, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court,1 rule 8.452) in propria persona, from the juvenile court's order denying her reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing ² as to her two- and one-year-old sons, K. and N., respectively, and seven-month-old daughter, D. We conclude her petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 and will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Patricia has a long history of drug abuse and child neglect.   In 2007, her two infant sons were removed from her custody because of her drug use.   She was provided reunification services but failed to comply.   Consequently, reunification services were terminated and, in 2009, the children were adopted.

These dependency proceedings were initiated after Patricia failed to comply with voluntary family maintenance by continuing her drug use.   In June 2011, the juvenile court ordered K., N. and D. detained and the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) placed them in foster care.   Pending further proceedings, the juvenile court ordered the agency to provide Patricia and the children's father, Kyle,³ services, including a substance abuse evaluation and drug testing.

In July 2011, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court adjudged the children dependents and set the dispositional hearing.   In its report for the dispositional hearing, the agency informed the court that Patricia was participating in drug treatment but advised the court that it was too soon to know if she would successfully complete it.   Further, the agency recommended the juvenile court deny Patricia reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (11) and (13) in light of her continuing drug use.

In August 2011, the juvenile court conducted the dispositional hearing.   Counsel for Patricia and Kyle offered no evidence but argued the case to the court.   Following argument, the juvenile court denied Patricia and Kyle reunification services as recommended by the agency and set a section 366.26 hearing as to the children.   Before issuing its rulings, the court acknowledged Patricia and Kyle's participation in services:  “While both parents may have started services, they started them after this matter was brought to the attention of the [c]ourt.   They have a substantial history of substance abuse issues and failed previous services.”   This petition ensued.

DISCUSSION

Patricia contends she participated in her court-ordered services and tested negative for drugs.   She asks for a chance to complete her services and prove herself.   In addition, Patricia provided documentation for this court's consideration concerning her participation in services after the date of the dispositional hearing.   We cannot review the documentation because it was not considered by the juvenile court.  (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.)   Further, we will dismiss the writ petition as facially inadequate because Patricia does not allege that the juvenile court erred in deciding as it did.

Rules 8.450–8.452 govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court and filing the appropriate documentation.   The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court's order setting the section 366.26 hearing.  (Rule 8.450(a).)   In the absence of a claim of error, this court will not independently review the appellate record for possible errors.  (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)   Consequently, since petitioner does not raise juvenile court error, we will dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for review.

DISPOSITION

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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

FN1. All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court..  FN1. All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

FN2. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated..  FN2. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

FN3. Kyle did not file a writ petition..  FN3. Kyle did not file a writ petition.