NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

GILBERT, P.J.

Petitioner Sharon H. (Mother), appearing in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ vacating the order of the juvenile court setting a permanent plan hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 We summarily deny the petition because petitioner has not complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2011, Mother gave birth to M.F. Mother has a longtime history of substance abuse and used methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy. Laboratory drug tests performed on M.F. indicate that the newborn was exposed to methamphetamine before birth.

On September 20, 2011, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a dependency petition concerning M.F. HSA alleged that Mother has a significant history of drug abuse and criminal behavior affecting her ability to care for M.F. HSA also alleged that M.F.'s presumed father, Daniel F., has a history of drug abuse and violent criminal behavior. (§ 300, subd. (b) [child has suffered serious harm or there is a substantial risk of serious harm to the child].)

On September 21, 2011, the juvenile court declared M.F. to be a dependent child, removed her from her parents' custody, and ordered her placed in the care and custody of HSA. On November 22, 2011, following a contested hearing, the court sustained the allegations of the dependency petition. Based upon the recommendation of HSA, the court also ordered that neither Mother nor Father receive family reunification services. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13) [parent has extensive and chronic drug abuse and has resisted or failed drug treatment programs].) The court then set the matter for a permanent plan hearing pursuant to section 366.26.

Mother has filed a petition for extraordinary writ that requests family reunification services and a permanent plan placement of M.F. with a "willing relative." HSA has responded with a motion to dismiss the petition based upon its procedural shortcomings.3

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to rule 8.452(a)(1)(D), the petition must include "[a] summary of the grounds of the petition." Rule 8.452(b)(1) provides that the petition must be accompanied by a memorandum providing "a summary of the significant facts" with supporting references to the record. "The memorandum must 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).) The memorandum "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 [court received "utterly deficient" petition].)

"The petition must be liberally construed . . . ." (Rule 8.452(a)(1).) But a liberal construction of the petition cannot cure a complete failure to comply with rule 8.452. The petition here does not contain a memorandum with a summary of the significant facts with supporting references to the record. Nor does it "offer argument and authorities that will assist the court in resolving the contested issues." (Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 583.)

"Absent exceptional circumstances, the reviewing court must decide the petition on the merits by written opinion." (Rule 8.452(h)(1).) Mother's utter failure to comply with rule 8.452 constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying the summary denial of her petition. "Because of the intolerable burden that would otherwise be foisted on the Courts of Appeal, we deem the failure to tender and substantively to address a specific material issue or issues or to furnish an adequate record to be `exceptional circumstances' . . . which excuse the court from reviewing and determining a petition on the merits." (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512; see also Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th 570, 584 [court announced that in the future it intends to summarily deny petitions that do not comply with rule 8.452]; Anthony D. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 149, 157 [where petition fails to meet the "threshold requirements," it should be summarily denied].)

We summarily deny the petition for extraordinary writ.

YEGAN, J. and PERREN, J., concurs.