In re M.H.

Filed 8/18/09 In re M.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.H., mother of M.H., appeals from a juvenile court order selecting legal guardianship and supervised visitation as a permanent plan pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] The petition filed pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) alleged that M.H. had ingested a potentially lethal dose of Tylenol and had a serious fall from the familys second story balcony. The petition also alleged that M.H.s parents were not properly able to care for M.H. due to their problems with substance abuse and mental health. Initially, M.H. was left in her parents care, but after the parents missed drug tests, tested positive for drugs and father was arrested for domestic violence, the juvenile court ordered M.H. detained.

Shortly after M.H. was detained, mother threatened to kill the social worker. The court issued a restraining order, ordered reunification services and granted mother supervised visitation with M.H. Mother participated in reunification services for 18 months, during which time evidence came to light that M.H.s half-brother (R.H.s son) had molested M.H.

At the end of 18 months, the court determined that it was not yet safe for M.H. to return home and set the matter for permanency planning. At the section 366.26 hearing, the Santa Cruz Human Resource Agency recommended legal guardianship as a permanent plan with significantly reduced visitation for mother. Mother agreed with the recommendation of legal guardianship, but objected to the reduced visitation. Finding that contact with mother caused M.H. extreme stress, the court ordered legal guardianship for M.H. The court allowed supervised visits for mother once per month, but prohibited all further phone contact. 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 21, 2009, we notified appellant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. On May 13, 2009, we received a letter from appellant.

In her letter appellant asks this court for another opportunity to regain custody of her daughter. Appellant describes the numerous steps she has taken to address the problems which led to this dependency proceeding. Unfortunately, appellant fails to raise any arguments which could be arguable issues in this appeal. Therefore, we need not seek further briefing from counsel based on this letter.

In a letter dated, April 7, 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 California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley 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.