In re L.A.

Filed 11/30/09 In re L.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.V., mother of L.A., appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Ten month old L.A. was taken into custody and subsequently detained after her father punched her mother in the face causing mother to drop the child. At the time of the incident, the parents were participating in voluntary family maintenance services, but had three times prior failed to abide by a safety plan.

The Santa Cruz County Human Resources Department (the Department) recommended placing the child in a foster home and offering the parents reunification services. Because of the parents long history of substance abuse and domestic violence, on February 22, 2008, the juvenile court sustained the petition filed pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) and ordered the child placed out of the home. The court also ordered services for the parents including supervised visits twice per week.

Despite initial progress in her case plan, by the time of the six month review hearing, the Department recommended termination of services. Mother had relapsed, had left her residential drug treatment program and had been terminated from Family Preservation Court. As a result, the juvenile court terminated services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

At the section 366.26 hearing, the Department recommended that the parents rights be terminated and that L.A. be freed for adoption. Mother presented no evidence but submitted the matter on the record before the court. Mother wished for post-adoption contact with the child. Finding the child adoptable, the court adopted the Departments recommendation and 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 (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 June 22, 2009, we notified appellant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received nothing from appellant. In a letter dated September 4, 2009, the Department asks this court 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 California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad 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.