Billy K. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 4/24/15 Billy K. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BILLY K., F070919 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. JJV067505C) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Billy K., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

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

Billy K. (father), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452 (rules)) to vacate the order of the juvenile court setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing1 as to his two-year-old son Blake. We dismiss the petition. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2013, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) took then 19-month-old Blake and his twin half brothers into protective custody after their mother Natasha was arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine and child endangerment. At the time, father was incarcerated in a county facility. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Blake and his brothers, ordered father and Natasha to participate in reunification services, and set the six-month review hearing for June 2014. The agency placed the children with their maternal great-aunt. In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court continue reunification services for Natasha. The agency also recommended the court terminate reunification services for father because he was awaiting a jury trial and was facing a long prison sentence if convicted. In June 2014, the juvenile court convened the six-month review hearing. Father’s attorney informed the court that father was sentenced to 20 years in prison and waived reunification services and all future dependency court appearances. The court terminated father’s reunification services and continued services for Natasha until the 12-month review hearing.