David C. v. Superior Court CA5

California Court of Appeal May 9, 2014 No. F068903Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as facially inadequate because it failed to allege juvenile court error and because the petitioner forfeited the issue of relative placement by failing to raise it in earlier proceedings.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in setting a section 366.26 hearing based on the petitioner's claim regarding lack of notice to a relative.
Whether the petitioner forfeited the issue of relative placement by failing to raise it in the juvenile court.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude David fails to allege juvenile court error in his writ petition and dismiss the petition as facially inadequate under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.”

“David never raised the issue of relative placement until this writ petition, though he had several opportunities to do so.”

“Consequently, David forfeited it for appellate review and is foreclosed from raising it now for the first time.”

Filed 5/9/14 David C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DAVID C., Petitioner, F068903 v. (Super. Ct. No. 516660) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. David C., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Maria Elena Ratliff, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

 Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Detjen, J.

David C. in propria persona seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing1 as to his two-year- old daughter, Catalina, who was placed in nonrelative foster care by the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency. David contends his mother never received notice of the dependency proceedings and would like Catalina placed with her. We conclude David fails to allege juvenile court error in his writ petition and dismiss the petition as facially inadequate under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In April 2013, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) removed then one-year-old Catalina from the custody of her mother after her mother was arrested for child endangerment, stealing electricity and cultivation of marijuana. The agency placed Catalina in nonrelative foster care. At the time, David was incarcerated on a firearm-related charge. In 2003, he was sentenced to seven years for assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). The juvenile court ordered Catalina detained and set a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing (combined hearing) for May 2013. Meanwhile, in April 2013, social worker Maria Pasillas attempted to locate a relative willing to take custody of Catalina by sending a letter to 31 relatives, including David’s mother, Irene G. Only one relative expressed an interest in taking custody of Catalina and that relative had a long criminal history. In August 2013, the juvenile court declared Catalina its dependent and ordered reunification services for her mother. The court denied David reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) because he was convicted of a violent felony

David C. v. Superior Court CA5

AI Brief

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief