NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

YEGAN, J.

C.S., appearing in propria persona, petitions for extraordinary writ relief from an order of the juvenile court setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 We summarily deny the petition because petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of California Rules of court, rule 8.452.2

Facts

Petitioner is the biological mother of Cody Z., born in March 2008. In September 2010, petitioner reported to the Ventura Police Department that Cody's biological father, M.Z., with whom they lived, had brandished a handgun at her and then punched her repeatedly in the ribs while she was holding Cody. During the beating, M.Z. also hit Cody in the face. M.Z. was arrested and remained in custody until November 25, 2010. Petitioner and Cody were taken to the hospital where petitioner declined an electronic protective order against M.Z.

In its initial detention report, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) expressed concern that petitioner would be unable to protect Cody from M.Z. because she had refused the protective order and appeared to minimize the risk M.Z. posed to Cody. The juvenile court detained Cody, returned him to petitioner's custody and issued a restraining order prohibiting M.Z. from having contact with either Cody or petitioner.

By the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in mid-October 2010, petitioner had appeared on M.Z.'s behalf in his criminal case to recant her original report of abuse. The evening after he was released from jail in late November 2010, Ventura police officers conducted a "well child check" at petitioner's apartment and found M.Z. hiding, nude, in a bedroom closet. He was arrested for violating the restraining order and was not released from custody again until January 2011.

After M.Z. was discovered in the apartment, HSA filed an amended petition and Cody was placed in foster care. Petitioner began to behave erratically and make irrational statements, such as accusing the social worker of having a relationship with M.Z. The juvenile court sustained the amended petition and offered petitioner reunification services. Petitioner's case plan required her to participate in a psychological examination, a domestic violence support group, individual therapy and parenting classes. Petitioner complied minimally with her case plan by attending the required classes, support groups and therapy sessions. But, she did not acknowledge her own involvement in a violent relationship. By February 2011, about two weeks after his release from custody, M.Z. was again living with petitioner in her apartment.

At the six month review hearing in June 2010, HSA reported that petitioner had received services but derived little benefit from them because she refused to acknowledge or address the physical violence that marked her relationship with M.Z. A psychological evaluation of petitioner noted that she demonstrated "`a pervasive pattern of instability of relationships, self-image, and emotions, marked by impulsivity[,]'" and recommended that "people working with [petitioner] need to approach her as someone with intellectual impairments." HSA concluded that although petitioner had completed some of her services, she did not appear to have benefited from them because she continued to deny that domestic violence occurred in her relationship with M.Z. "Until recently [petitioner] did not admit that domestic violence occurred and stated that she was only having to do case plan services because of the broken restraining order. . . . Throughout this reporting period, the mother continues to make contradictory statements regarding the father. The mother's failure to address the domestic violence issue places the child at risk for future domestic violence if returned to her care at this time."

Following a contested hearing, at which both petitioner and M.Z. testified, the juvenile court found that, although both parents had received services, neither parent would acknowledge the domestic violence that had occurred in their relationship. The court further found that petitioner lacked credibility. "I just almost can't believe anything she says, and I don't know why. . . . I suspect it's [the result of her mental condition]. She lies at will. She accuses social workers and service providers of outrageous, irrational and unbelievable behavior with no basis for doing so. [¶] She's very secretive, very guarded, and doesn't appear to have any insight or any desire to understand why pretty much everybody that's seen her sees that there's a problem there." The juvenile court described the parents' relationship as "highly dysfunctional" and having a "huge potential for more violence . . . ." It concluded by finding that neither parent had made substantive progress and that there was no "substantial probability that the next review period would make any difference; so I'm ordering reunification services terminated, and I'm setting a .26 hearing to decide the permanent plan for the child."

Discussion

Rule 8.452(b)(1) provides that a petition for extraordinary writ relief must be accompanied by a memorandum providing "a summary of the significant facts, limited to matters in the record." The memorandum must also "state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point and support each point by argument and citation of authority." (Rule 8.452(b)(2).) It must, "at a minimum, adequately inform the court of the issues presented, point out the factual support for them in the record, and offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues." (Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 583.)

The written materials petitioner filed in support of her writ petition contain many factual statements, but they are not limited to matters in the record and do not address the basis for the juvenile court's order. Petitioner has also failed to provide any supporting arguments or citations to legal authority. She continues to reside with M.Z., denies that he physically abused her and does not acknowledge that living with him poses a grave risk of violent injury to Cody. Petitioner complains instead that she is being punished by HSA for asking too many questions about the dependency process, that Cody is in foster care only because M.Z. violated a restraining order, and that HSA is "fabricating my particular story for their gain."

Rule 8.452 (h)(1) provides: "Absent exceptional circumstances, the reviewing court must decide the petition on the merits by written opinion." Petitioner failed to comply with Rule 8.452 because she did not identify or substantively address the specific issues on which she seeks review. This failure constitutes "exceptional circumstances" excusing the court from reviewing and determining the petition on the merits. (Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 584; Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157-158; Joyce C. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512.)

Disposition

The petition for extraordinary writ is summarily denied.

GILBERT, P.J. and COFFEE, J., concurs.