In re A.M.
Filed 8/18/09 In re A.M. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H033790 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. J41706) |
MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.M., Defendant and Appellant. |
Appellant A.M., father of A.M., appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] The facts underlying the juvenile courts assumption of jurisdiction over the child are set out in further detail in this courts opinion in A.M. v. Superior Court, H033344.[2] In that case, we denied appellants petition for extraordinary writ challenging the juvenile courts order terminating reunification services.
After our opinion was final, the case proceeded to a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan. The Monterey Department of Social & Employment Services (Department) recommended that the court select adoption as a permanent plan. In a report filed before the hearing, the Department stated that the child had been placed with a prospective adoptive family since 2007 and both the family and child were happy and doing well together. The Department also recommended ongoing visits for the child with his siblings who were still in appellants care.
After a contested hearing, the juvenile court adopted the Departments recommendations. The court found the child to be adoptable, approved adoption as a permanent plan and terminated all parental rights. This timely appeal ensued.
On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent appellant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sade C.).) In the opening brief, counsel acknowledged that this court has no duty to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, but requested that we allow appellant the opportunity to submit a brief in propria persona pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C., (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 543-544 (Ben C.). On April 15, 2009, we notified appellant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received nothing from appellant.
The appellant having failed to raise any issue on appeal, the appeal must be dismissed as abandoned. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th 529; Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952.)
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
______________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
PREMO, J.
____________________________________
ELIA, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2] Pursuant to appellants request, On April 29, 2009, we took judicial notice of the record and our opinion in A.M. v. Superior Court (Dec. 12, 2008, H033344) [nonpub. opn.].
