Eric H. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 1/17/14 Eric H. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ERIC H., Petitioner, F068439 v. (Super. Ct. No. JV7237) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. William G. Polley, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Tuolumne Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Eric H., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J.

Petitioner, Eric H. (father), filed an extraordinary writ petition (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452)1 regarding his minor child, Devin H. (Devin). Father seeks relief from the juvenile court’s order issued at the 12-month review hearing setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.262 hearing to consider termination of parental rights. On review, we conclude father’s petition is inadequate because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements of rule 8.452. He fails to allege, let alone make an arguable claim, that the juvenile court committed any error. Therefore, we will dismiss his petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 4, 2012, a petition was filed alleging that Devin, then age two, came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b). The petition also alleged, inter alia, the following: In January 2011, and again in May 2011, father physically assaulted Jeanette P. (mother). On both occasions, Devin was in the home. On or about October 2, 2012, mother “disclosed ongoing domestic violence between [her] and [father] in the presence of the child,” and stated that father “continues to be verbally and physically abusive.” On November 13, 2012, a jurisdiction hearing was held at which the petition was sustained. On December 4, 2012, at the disposition hearing, and again on May 21, 2013, at the six-month status review hearing, father “[was] ordered to sign and comply with a Dependency Drug Court Family Reunification case plan.” The objectives of the plan include that father “not behave in a manner that is verbally, emotionally or physically abusive or threatening ….”