Julio v. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 7/10/15 Julio V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JULIO V., F071567 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 14JD0001) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KINGS OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for extraordinary writ review. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge. Julio V., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Juliana F. Gmur, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Smith, J.

Petitioner Julio V., in propria persona, seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s order issued April 16, 2015, setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing1 as to his five-year-old son Gauge V. and three-year-old daughter A.V.2 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450.) Julio asks this court to issue a writ directing the juvenile court to vacate the section 366.26 hearing and to remand the case for a hearing so that he can express his intentions to the juvenile court. Ultimately, he seeks reunification services, visitation and the return of the children to his custody. We conclude Julio failed to raise a claim of juvenile court error and dismiss the petition as inadequate for our review. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In January 2014, then three-year-old Gauge and 23-month-old A.V. were taken into protective custody after their mother Jennifer was arrested for possessing methamphetamine. At the time, Julio was incarcerated on drug-related charges. He was expected to be released in September 2016. In March 2014, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for Jennifer but denied Julio services because he was incarcerated and the court determined that providing him services would be detrimental to the children. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).) The juvenile court provided Jennifer 12 months of reunification services. However, she made minimal progress. Meanwhile, Julio remained incarcerated.