DISCUSSION

John and Monique acknowledge their delay in initiating their court-ordered reunification services but contend they are making efforts to comply. To that end, they attached to their petition a “Verification of Application and Attendance” form from Sierra

3 Vista Child and Family Services evidencing they completed their intake assessment in late August 2013. As a preliminary matter, we will not review the documentation John and Monique included with their writ petitions because it was not considered by the juvenile court. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.) Further, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of the consolidated petition because John and Monique do not claim the juvenile court erred in terminating their reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. California Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452, govern the procedures for initiating dependency writ proceedings in this court. The purpose of writ proceedings is to facilitate review of the juvenile court’s order setting the section 366.26 hearing. (Rule 8.450(a).) To that end, rule 8.452(b) requires the petitioner to set forth legal arguments by points and authorities, including specific citation to the appellate record. In this case, John and Monique did not comply with the rule by including points and authorities. Nevertheless, this court will liberally construe a petition in favor of its sufficiency if it asserts juvenile court error. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a)(1).) This court will not, however, independently review the appellate record for possible errors. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Because John and Monique do not raise juvenile court error, their writ petition is inadequate for review.

DISPOSITION

The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.

4