In re Raymond H.
Filed 8/11/06 In re Raymond H. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re RAYMOND H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.M., Defendant and Appellant. | F050220 (Super. Ct. No. 82486-1)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Janet G. Sherwood, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
V.M. appeals from an order following a post-permanency review hearing regarding her son, Raymond H. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3).[1] Raymond H. has been in a permanent placement of long-term foster care since 2001. At the February 2006 review hearing which is the subject of this appeal, the superior court granted appellant's request for an assessment of whether mother/son visitation would be appropriate despite the fact that appellant was incarcerated and the child previously expressed a desire not to visit appellant while she was incarcerated.
Appellant's appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated June 28, 2006, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order dated July 7, 2006, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.
Apparently, with the assistance of the child's father, Ronnie H., appellant has filed such a letter brief with this court.[2] The brief raises a variety of conclusory arguments many of which we recognize from various motions and briefs filed by Ronnie H. over the years in appeals he has filed with this court. It begins with characterizing court-appointed appellate counsel as â€
