S.M. v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 2/22/16 S.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

S.M., F072739 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 14CEJ300192-1-5) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kim Nystrom-Geist, Judge. S.M., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

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

S.M. (mother), in propria persona, filed a petition for extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s order setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing1 as to her four sons and daughter. Mother does not, however, assert that the juvenile court erred. Consequently, we dismiss the writ petition as facially inadequate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450 & 8.452.) PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In June 2014, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took mother’s nine-, seven-, and two-year-old sons and four-month-old daughter, into protective custody after she was arrested for burglary, child endangerment and battery. The department placed the children in foster care. The juvenile court exercised it dependency jurisdiction over the children and provided mother reunification services, including drug treatment. While participating in services mother gave birth to a son and tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of his delivery. The department took the child into protective custody and the juvenile court adjudged him a dependent child. The juvenile court provided mother reunification services until November 2015. However, she made minimal progress in her services plan. She relapsed multiple times and did not complete a 90-day residential treatment program despite being referred to approximately 12 inpatient facilities. In its report for the review of services hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services. In November 2015, following a contested review hearing, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services as to all five children and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.