Fear Not Law Articles: In re A.D.

In re A.D.

Filed 7/16/10 In re A.D. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

C.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F059841

(Super. Ct. No. JP000070)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Harry L. Jacobs, Commissioner.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

_______________________

* Before Dawson, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Poochigian, J.

C.V. (mother) appealed from a March 2010 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her son A.D. (child).^{^[1]} After reviewing the entire record, mothers court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mothers behalf. 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 did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)

Mother has since submitted a letter in which she describes her current efforts to improve herself. She also asks for a chance to bond with her child. She protests that she never had the opportunity to do so.

Having reviewed the matter, we conclude mothers letter does not set forth a good cause showing of any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Rather, she appears to complain about her childs detention upon his birth in August 2009.

Respondent, Merced County Human Services Agency, detained the child at birth because mother and the childs father had recently and severely abused the childs half sibling. The juvenile court in turn sustained allegations that the severe abuse and neglect, which the half sibling suffered, placed the child at similar risk. Then, in November 2009, following a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court removed the child from parental custody, denied the parents reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing to implement a permanent plan for the child.

The events leading to the childs 2009 detention and removal from mothers custody are not proper subjects for our review on this appeal from the 2010 order terminating parental rights. An appeal from the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for seeking review has passed. (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563.)

In this case, mother had the opportunity to challenge the childs detention and removal from her custody when the juvenile court set the permanency planning hearing. Although mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ with this court to do so, her petition was blank except for the basic information required (i.e., name, address and juvenile court case number). In that a petition requires at least some allegation of juvenile court error in order for us to review the matter ( 366.26, subd. (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452), mothers petition was inadequate for review. Consequently, this court dismissed the petition as facially deficient. (C.V. v. Superior Court (Jan. 28, 2010, F058946) [nonpub. opn.].) She therefore has forfeited any right to challenge her childs detention and removal on this appeal. ( 366.26, subd. (l).)

Furthermore, 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.) Here, mother does not raise any claim of error or other defect against the termination order from which she appeals. Accordingly, we shall dismiss her appeal.

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^{^[1]} All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Description	C.V. (mother) appealed from a March 2010 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her son A.D. (child).[1] After reviewing the entire record, mothers court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mothers behalf. 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 did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Mother has since submitted a letter in which she describes her current efforts to improve herself. She also asks for a chance to bond with her child. She protests that she never had the opportunity to do so. Having reviewed the matter, we conclude mothers letter does not set forth a good cause showing of any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Rather, she appears to complain about her childs detention upon his birth in August 2009.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.