Jessica C. v. The Superior Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. (Super. Ct. Nos. 10CEJ300244-3, 10CEJ300244-4, 10CEJ300244-5, 10CEJ300244-6, 10CEJ300244-7, 10CEJ300244-8) Elizabeth Egan, Judge.

Jessica C., in pro. per., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Lisa R. Flores, Deputy Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

THE COURT^[*]

Jessica C. (mother) is the mother of eight minor children, six of whom were in a legal guardianship with their paternal grandmother, F.Z. (guardian), when they were taken into protective custody in July 2020 by the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department). Mother then had an open dependency case involving her two youngest children. The six minors (the minors) in legal guardianship are the subjects of this writ petition.

Mother also has two adult sons (older sons) from a previous relationship.

In July 2021, at a contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile court terminated the legal guardianship, exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the minors, denied mother and H.A., the minors' father (father), placement and reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.

Father did not file a writ petition.

Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Mother in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452) directing the juvenile court to vacate its order setting a section 366.26 hearing and order reunification services or return the minors to her custody and terminate dependency. We conclude the petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition.

Rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Mother has a long history with child welfare services dating back to 2002 with a total of 38 referrals related to drug use, neglect, and emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. In 2010, the children were removed from the parents because father was physically abusing them, mother failed to protect them, and the parents exposed the children to domestic violence. The juvenile court ordered reunification services for mother and the fathers of the children. By 2013, mother had sole legal and physical custody of her two older sons and she and father had joint legal and physical custody of the minors. However, the parents continued to engage in domestic violence and use drugs. Consequently, the guardian obtained legal guardianship of the minors in 2016.

Eight children in total were removed; the two older sons who are now adults and the six minors who are the subjects of this writ petition.

In October 2019, mother's then 20-month-old and newborn sons (younger sons) were removed from the custody of mother and their father, Freddie C., because of mother's mental health issues (bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia), methamphetamine use and domestic violence. The juvenile court denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), because of her "history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs" and resistance to treatment. The court ordered reunification services for Freddie and scheduled a six-month review hearing for July 28, 2020. The younger sons were placed with maternal relatives.

The last court hearing in the younger sons' case was conducted on August 18, 2020. The department's recommendation was to terminate Freddie's reunification services. The hearing was continued to September 15, 2020. There is no further information in the record as to the status of that case.

These dependency proceedings were initiated in July 2020 when the guardian drove the minors to the department's office with the intent to relinquish them, stating she no longer wanted to care for them because of their behavior. They were making false allegations against her, disrespecting her, stealing money, and using vape pens. They alleged she used them as slaves because she gave them chores to do and the daughter, who was then 13 years old, was reportedly posting promiscuous pictures online. The minors did not want to live with the guardian anymore and she refused to leave the office with them. She said she would rather deal with the juvenile dependency court than be arrested because of the minors' false accusations.

Mother told the social worker the minors had been calling her stating they were unhappy with the guardian because she made them kneel on rice for two hours as punishment. Mother petitioned the court for visits but was denied. She wanted help getting the minors back. Mother denied any drug or alcohol abuse, stating she had been sober since 2013. She declined to be tested, however, stating she had a class. She separated from father in 2015 and lived alone in a one-bedroom apartment. She was disabled due to mental health problems and received social security income. She did not have the resources and space to accommodate the minors and wanted them placed with their maternal uncle in Orange County.

The department took the minors into protective custody and filed a dependency petition, alleging the minors came within the juvenile court's dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect) and (i) (cruelty) because of acts perpetrated by the guardian. It specifically alleged that the guardian choked the daughter in the past and held her against the wall by the neck, hit the minors with a belt, slapped them on the face, made them sit on their knees for hours at a time, yelled at them and cut their hair as a form of discipline.

On July 29, 2020, the juvenile court ordered the minors detained and offered the guardian services pending its disposition of the case and visitation for the parents. The court set a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing (combined hearing) for September 1, 2020. The department placed the minors in two foster homes.

By the time of the combined hearing, the guardian had changed her mind and wanted to participate in reunification services. The department recommended the juvenile court sustain the petition, order the guardian to participate in reunification services, and deny the parents placement and reunification services-mother services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) and father under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10).

Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) allows the juvenile court to deny a parent reunification services who failed to reunify with a sibling or half sibling of the child currently before the juvenile court and the parent failed to subsequently make a reasonable effort to treat the problem necessitating the sibling or half sibling's removal.

On September 1, 2020, the juvenile court set a contested hearing on October 20, 2020. The guardian contested jurisdiction and mother and father contested the denial of reunification services. On October 20, the court granted the department discretion to offer mother random drug testing. Over the ensuing seven months, four attorneys representing the guardian declared a conflict and were relieved. New counsel was appointed, necessitating multiple continuances of the contested hearing.

On May 11, 2021, the department filed a second amended petition, removing the section 300, subdivision (i) allegation and adding a new allegation against the guardian under section 300, subdivision (g). The subdivision (g) count alleged the guardian was no longer willing to care for the minors and wanted her legal guardianship terminated. The department also prepared an addendum report, stating mother had not complied with random drug testing and consistently stated she did not have a substance abuse problem while also stating she was in substance abuse treatment.

On May 18, 2021, the legal guardian's fifth attorney filed a conflict and requested to be relieved. The juvenile court appointed new counsel, continued the contested hearing to July 27 and set a settlement conference for June 1.

At the June 1, 2021 settlement conference, the juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem for the guardian and set a new settlement conference for June 29. The settlement conference was continued again to July 26. On that date, the contested hearing for July 27 was vacated and the matter reset to July 30.

At the contested combined hearing on July 30, 2021, the matter proceeded with testimony by the social worker and argument by counsel. The guardian's attorney argued the juvenile court should sustain the section 300, subdivision (g) count only and terminate the guardianship. Counsel for mother stated mother agreed with the jurisdictional allegations against the guardian and in terminating the guardianship, and objected to the denial of reunification services but did not offer any evidence or testimony.

The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the second amended petition, terminated the legal guardianship, found that placement with the parents would be detrimental to the minors' safety and well-being and denied the parents reunification services as recommended. The court set a section 366.26 hearing for November 16, 2021.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends there is no substantial evidence proving allegations against her. She believes the minors should not be where they are and "[unfortunately], due to [circumstances] the father brought them to Fresno[.] No law would [hear her.]" (Writ pet. at p. 2.) In supporting documentation, she asks for a second chance. She believes the minors are confused and under a lot of stress being separated from their parents and that children separated from their parents are at higher risk of suffering difficulties in life. She also attached an order from the Orange County Superior Court dated September 8, 2015, ordering her to mediation before her next hearing then scheduled for November 2, 2015. We conclude mother has failed to demonstrate the juvenile court erred.

When the juvenile court sets a hearing under section 366.26, it must first make certain findings and orders. A parent wishing to challenge the court's findings and orders must do so by filing an extraordinary writ petition. The purpose of the extraordinary writ petition is to allow the appellate court to achieve a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court's orders and findings issued at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(4).) However, a parent filing an extraordinary writ petition must explain how the juvenile court was wrong in ruling as it did; in other words, how the court erred.

Rule 8.452, which sets forth the content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition, requires the petitioner to identify the error(s) he or she believes the juvenile court made and to support each alleged error with argument, citation to legal authority, and citation to the appellate record. (Rule 8.452(b).) In keeping with rule 8.452(a)(1), we will liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible, 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 the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Here, mother in essence argues she was not the cause of the minors' removal because there were no allegations against her in the dependency petition. She also asks for a second chance to parent the minors because it would be in their best interest. Mother does not explain, however, how the juvenile court erred in ruling as it did.

The juvenile court takes jurisdiction over children, not parents or guardians. To take dependency jurisdiction, the court need only find the conduct of one parent or guardian brought the child within any of the subdivisions of section 300. (In re A.R. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1150.) Here, the court found the minors were minors described under subdivisions (a), (b) and (g) of section 300 because of the guardian's conduct. Consequently, though mother is correct that her actions did not bring the minors under the court's jurisdiction in this case, the court nevertheless had grounds to establish its jurisdiction over them because of the guardian's conduct. Once the court exercised its jurisdiction and removed the minors, the only other consideration was whether to provide mother reunification services. The court declined to do so under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) based on her history and ongoing use of drugs. Mother's attorney did not dispute the evidence supporting a denial of services under that statute at the contested hearing nor does mother on this writ petition. Further, having terminated the guardianship and denied the parents reunification services, the court had no choice but to set a section 366.26 hearing.

Mother references but does not explain the evidence concerning the family's history in Orange County and its relevance to this case. In any event, the Orange County minute order mother appended to her writ petition was not evidence before the juvenile court or included in the appellate record. As a general rule, we are precluded from reviewing such evidence and make no exception here. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413.)

We conclude mother's petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 because she does not assert any error on the part of the juvenile court. Moreover, we do not independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 994, 996.) Consequently, we dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for appellate review.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed as inadequate under rule 8.452. This court's opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A). ^[*] Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.