A.T. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 11/17/25 A.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

A.T., F090371 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 24JP-00036-A) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. A.T., in propria persona. No appearance for Respondent.

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, Gordon-Creed, Kelley, Holl & Sugerman LLP, Jeremy Sugerman, and Anne H. Nguyen for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo- A.T. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court,1 rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code,2 § 366.21, subd. (f)) terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for December 3, 2025, as to her child I.M. (“the child”). Mother seeks a writ directing the court to return the child to her custody or continue reunification services. We conclude mother’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 Initial Removal In April 2024, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) received a referral alleging mother and the child’s father, S.M. (father), were engaging in sexual intercourse in the presence of the child.3 An agency social worker responded to the family’s home with law enforcement. The home was observed to be in a “deplorable” condition with a shattered exterior door window, trash, debris, random large items and clutter stacked high in the garage. A “malodorous odor” was detected while the social worker stood in the entryway of the home. The social worker was confronted by mother’s friend, Amy, who explained that mother was not home. The child came out of the home to ask if she was going to be taken away by the social worker. Amy refused to allow the social worker to speak with