R v. v. Superior Court CA2/5

Filed 8/12/15 R.V. v. Superior Court CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

R.V., No. B264207

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. CK91916) (Amy M. Pellman, Judge) v. PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS WRIT ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Petition for Extraordinary Writ: Writ Denied. R.V., in pro. per., for Petitioner. Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Sarah Vesecky and Kim Nemoy, Deputies County Counsel for Real Parties in Interest.

I. INTRODUCTION

R.V., the presumed father (father) of six children ages one to eight years old (the children)1 filed an extraordinary writ petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.2 He challenges an April 29, 2015, dispositional order that terminated reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.263 permanency planning hearing (setting order) for the six children. He contends that there were various errors in the proceedings that warrant vacating the setting order. We conclude otherwise and accordingly deny the petition.4

1 There were four children, three daughters and one son, in the family when the dependency proceedings began in 2012. Two more children were born to the parents after the proceedings began. When used herein, the term “children” refers to the children who were in existence at the time of the events being described. 2 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 3 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless stated otherwise. 4 Petitioner filed a motion on August 3, 2015--after briefing was complete and the day prior to scheduled argument--to augment the record. The motion is denied. We find the motion was not made within a reasonable time and no good cause for the delay was shown. (Advisory Comm. Comment to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155 [while a party may request augmentation at any time, “[w]hether the motion is made within a reasonable time and is not for the purpose of delay, however, are among the factors the reviewing court may consider in ruling on such a motion”].) On the merits, the documents in the record below that Petitioner offers for augmentation are not material to, nor would they assist in a determination of, this writ proceeding. (In re M.M. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 54, 59, fn. 4; Steele v. Internat. Air Race Association of America (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 61, 63; see also People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1070, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823 [“A reviewing court ‘focuses on the ruling itself and the record on which it was made. . . . ’ [Citation.]”.) As to those documents Petitioner offers that were not lodged or filed in the juvenile court, augmentation would be improper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A); People v. Brooks (1980) 26 Cal.3d 471, 484.)