Trisha K. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 5/29/15 Trisha 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TRISHA K., F071378 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ300282) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kimberly J. Nystrom-Geist, Judge. Trisha K., in propria persona for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and David F. Rodriguez, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Trisha K. (mother) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) following a juvenile court order setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 for her four-year-old son Shawn and one-year-old son David.1 The juvenile court issued its order after finding, in relevant part, that when David was seven months old, he suffered serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by mother and that both children were at risk of suffering future serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally by her. (§ 300, subd. (a) [abuse].) Having exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children on this and other grounds (§ 300, subds. (b) [neglect] & (i) [cruelty]), the court also removed them from parental custody (§ 361, subd. (c)(1)) and denied mother and the children’s father reunification services. In mother’s case, the court denied her services on multiple grounds. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(6) [infliction of severe physical harm by act or omission of parent] & (13) [parent’s history of extensive, abusive and chronic use of drugs and resistance to prior court-ordered treatment].) Mother does not allege that the juvenile court’s orders were erroneous. At most, she claims in conclusory fashion she never hurt either child. She also states the children need to be immediately placed with her. According to mother, Shawn is unhappy and will suffer permanent emotional damage without her. Mother’s petition is inadequate because she fails to raise specific issues and substantively address them. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) Even if we were to construe mother’s claims as challenges to the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings that mother abused David and both children were at risk of suffering abuse, as well as its decision to remove the children from her custody, we still would conclude those claims are meritless. We dismiss the petition.