In re G.R.

Filed 7/14/09 In re G.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Appellant C.R., mother of baby girl G.R. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions code section 366.26.[1] The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrens Services (Department) filed a petition on September 6, 2007 pursuant to section 300, on behalf of newborn G.R. This petition alleged that mother, who was incarcerated at Elmwood Womens Correctional Facility, had a history of drug abuse and criminal convictions. It further alleged that mother had failed to reunify with other children and had no caretaker outside Elmwood available to care for the infant. On October 10, 2007, the court made G.R. a dependent of the court and ordered reunification services for mother.

By the contested six-month review hearing, the Department recommended termination of services. The juvenile court followed this recommendation, finding that mother had not made substantive progress in her case plan, and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. At the contested 366.26 hearing, the court found that the child was healthy, developmentally on target and doing well in her foster home. Although there was no adoptive home identified, the court concluded that G.R. was adoptable. Finding that none of the exceptions enumerated in section 366.26 applied, the court terminated 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,[2] 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 March 23, 2009, we notified appellant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. On April 23, 2009, we received a supplemental Opening Brief from appellant accompanied by a stack of documents.

In her supplemental brief, appellant challenges, point by point, the factual veracity of various reports in the record. Recounting her past difficulties and various medical conditions, appellant asks this court to further review the record below and to grant her another opportunity to bond with G.R. Although appellants history is indeed tragic, and her desire to maintain a relationship with her child appears sincere, we are unable to identify any issues raised in her letter that are cognizable in the instant appeal. Therefore, we find no need to request further briefing in response to this letter.

In a letter dated, March 19, 2009, the respondent asks us to dismiss the appeal. 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]People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.