Chase O. v. Superior Court CA5
Filed 1/14/25 Chase O. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
CHASE O., F088946 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. Nos. JJV073068C, v. JJV073068D)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;
TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Hugo J. Loza, Judge. Chase O. in, propria persona, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.
Chase O. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452)1 from the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 366.26 hearing for February 26, 2025, as to his children, H.O. and S.O. (collectively, the children). We conclude father’s petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452 regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In August 2020, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) filed an original petition alleging the children and two of their half siblings were at risk due to their mother and father’s substance abuse. The children were placed with their maternal great-grandmother, and their half siblings were released to the custody of their father, J.V. The allegations of the petition were sustained on September 15, 2020. The agency recommended that mother and father be provided family reunification services for the children while J.V. was provided family maintenance services for the half siblings. At the disposition hearing held on November 13, 2020, the children were made dependents of the juvenile court. A six-month review hearing was set for April 30, 2021. The report for the six-month review hearing recommended that father and mother’s family reunification services be continued. Father was visiting with the children regularly, but his compliance with the case plan was described as minimal. His random drug testing results revealed several positive tests for either cocaine or amphetamines, and he did not attend a substance abuse assessment in April 2021. At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court continued father and mother’s family reunification services.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)