William T. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 9/11/15 William T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

WILLIAM T., F071885 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 13JD0008) 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. James LaPorte, Judge. William T., 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 Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.

William T. in propria persona seeks extraordinary writ review of the juvenile court’s order issued at a post-permanency plan review hearing setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing as to his 11-year-old son, Johnathan. We conclude William’s writ petition fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 which governs the content requirements of the extraordinary writ petition and dismiss the petition as facially inadequate for appellate review. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In May 2013, the juvenile court ordered then nine-year-old Johnathan removed from the custody of his mother, Jamie, and father, William, because of Jamie’s substance abuse. The juvenile court ordered reunification services for Jamie but not for William. In March 2014, the juvenile court terminated Jamie’s reunification services and in July 2014, at a section 366.26 hearing, ordered Johnathan to remain in foster care with a goal of legal guardianship. At the post-permanency plan review hearing (hereafter “the review hearing”) in January 2015, the juvenile court found that foster care was the appropriate permanent plan for Johnathan and ordered him to remain with his foster parents. However, in its report for the review hearing scheduled for June 2015, the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) advised the juvenile court that Johnathan’s foster parents wanted to pursue legal guardianship and Johnathan wanted to remain in their care. In addition, William had not inquired about Johnathan’s well-being or made any effort to regain custody of him. Consequently, the agency recommended the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a long-term plan of legal guardianship. William appeared at the June 2015 review hearing through his attorney who submitted on the agency’s recommendation. The juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing for October 2015.