Barbara A. v. Super. Ct. CA5

Filed 9/18/14 Barbara A. v. Super. Ct. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BARBARA A., Petitioner, F069593 v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 12CEJ300064-1, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO 12CEJ300064-2 & COUNTY, 12CEJ300064-3)

Respondent; OPINION FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Timothy A. Kams, Judge. Isaiah Peterson, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Amy K. Cobb, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

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

Barbara A. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) following a juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to select and implement permanent plans for her three daughters.1 Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the children with regard to her and its order denying her reunification services. On review, we conclude mother has failed to provide an adequate record for this court to review the juvenile court’s findings and orders. Mother’s petition also fails to comport with the procedural requirements of section 366.26, subdivision (l) and California Rules of Court, rule 8.452. Accordingly, we will dismiss her petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY The parents’ untreated substance abuse and resulting neglect led the juvenile court in 2012 to exercise its dependency jurisdiction over the children and remove them from parental custody. The court also ordered numerous reunification services for both parents. Mother’s court-ordered services included a substance abuse assessment and recommended treatment. Although residential drug treatment was recommended and real party in interest Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) referred mother multiple times, mother never entered such a program or for that matter participated in any other court-ordered services. Mother did not believe she needed substance abuse treatment. As a result, the juvenile court terminated services for mother in early 2013. The children’s father, however, did successfully reunify with the children, so that in May 2013, the court granted him sole legal and physical custody of the children and terminated its dependency jurisdiction.