Peter C. v. Super. Ct. CA5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of writ proceedings such as this is to facilitate review of a juvenile court’s order setting a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for a dependent child. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(a).) A court’s decision is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to a petitioner to raise specific issues and substantively address them. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) This court will not independently review the record for possible error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) As noted above, father does not raise any issues in his petition. Out of an abundance of caution, we have reviewed the record surrounding the order setting the section 366.26 hearing in relation to father’s requests for relief. That record, however, consists of undisputed evidence that father had not participated in any court-ordered reunification services and there was no substantial probability that the child could be returned to father within the next six months. Father had recently been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, following a no contest plea, and was sentenced to

All statutory references are to the Welfare and…