In re Skye B.

In re Skye B.








Filed 1/6/12 In re Skye B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re SKYE B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMILY S., Defendant and Appellant.	F063131 (Super. Ct. No. MJP016114) OPINION

THE COURT^*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. Bender, Judge.
Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

Emily S. (mother) appealed from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her four-year-old daughter, Skye B.^[1] After reviewing the entire record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she had found no arguable issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel requested, and this court granted, leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
Mother has since submitted a letter in which she asks for another chance to be a part of Skye’s life. Mother claims she has made a major change for the better. Mother’s letter, however, neither addresses the termination proceedings nor sets forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing does exist. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we shall dismiss this appeal.
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to an appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant does not do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
At the termination hearing in this case, the court’s proper focus was on the child to determine whether it was likely she would be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. Once reunification services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the needs of the children for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, adoption is the norm. Indeed, the court must order adoption and its necessary consequence, termination of parental rights, unless one of the specified circumstances provides a compelling reason for finding that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) Here, mother offered the juvenile court no compelling reason for finding termination would be detrimental. In fact, despite proper notice of the section 366.26 hearing, mother did not attend the hearing.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.