R.Z. v. Superior Court CA5
Filed 11/3/21 R.Z. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
R.Z., F083214 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CEJ300140-2, v. 21CEJ300140-3)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kimberly J. Nystrom-Geist, Judge. R.Z., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Lisa R. Flores, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.
R.Z. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders denying her reunification services (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (b)(5) & (6))1 and setting a section 366.26 hearing on December 14, 2021, as to her now two-year-old son, M.Z., and one-year-old daughter, J.Z., based on its finding J.Z. suffered severe physical abuse while in her care. She contends the juvenile court erred in relying strictly upon medical information to determine the injuries were nonaccidental instead of conducting a further investigation. She also contends the court erred in not placing the children with a relative. We conclude mother’s petition fails to comport with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.4522 regarding extraordinary writ petitions and dismiss the petition. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Dependency proceedings were initiated on April 19, 2021, after then seven-month- old J.Z. (the baby) was transported by ambulance to the emergency room to be treated for an altered mental state after she was injured at home. She sustained bilateral subdural hematomas, a left subdural hemorrhage, and retinal hemorrhages in both eyes. Because her condition was life-threatening, the doctors performed an emergency craniotomy to evacuate the right subdural hematoma. She was admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. Mother and the baby’s father, S.I. (father),3 lived with their two children, the baby, then two-year-old M.Z., and mother’s sons from two other relationships, 12-year-old Jonathan, 10-year-old Luis and nine-year-old Alexander. Mother was the only caregiver for the children. According to mother, the baby was asleep on the couch. Luis was sitting next to the baby watching over her. Alexander’s teacher came to the house to give
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)