M.G. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 10/7/24 M.G. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

M.G.,

Petitioner, F088321

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22JP-00166-A)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. James LaPorte, Judge. (Retired judge of the Merced Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) M.G., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Jennifer L. Tran, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo- Petitioner M.G. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court,1 rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s order made at a contested Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 387 supplemental disposition hearing setting a section 366.26 hearing for October 16, 2024, as to her minor daughter, R.C. She also requests a stay of the section 366.26 hearing. In addition, while her petition was pending, she filed a request to enter default to the real party in interest, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency).3 We conclude mother’s petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 regarding extraordinary writ petitions. We deny her request to enter default, dismiss the petition, and deny her request for a stay. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 29, 2022, the agency filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of then five-year-old R.C. alleging she came within the court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b)(1). It was specifically alleged that R.C. had suffered or was at risk of suffering harm due to the parents’ failure to supervise her, protect her from a care provider with whom she was left, and failure to care for her due to substance abuse. R.C. had had a seizure and was taken to the hospital, and it was discovered upon examination that she had methamphetamine in her system. R.C. had several medical