Filed 7/16/26 In re S.V. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re S.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F090859
SERVICES,
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD146027-00,
Plaintiff and Respondent, JD146028-00, JD146029-00)
v.
OPINION
J.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Christie Canales
Norris, Judge.
Brian Bitker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Harrell, J.
Appellant J.G. (mother) is the mother of S.V., L.V., and K.V. (collectively, the
children), who are the subjects of this dependency case. Mother appealed from the
juvenile court’s orders issued at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing
on November 20, 2025, which resulted in her parental rights being terminated. After
reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court
he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother
leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue
of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Mother filed a
letter brief but failed to make such a showing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2024, the Kern County Department of Social Services (department) filed
petitions alleging the children were described by section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The
allegations involved unsanitary and hazardous conditions in the mother’s home. At the
initial detention hearing held on June 13, 2024, mother was present and appointed
counsel. The children were detained from mother’s custody at a continued detention
hearing, and a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing was set for July 25, 2024.
The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petitions at the initial
jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The department’s request to continue the disposition
hearing was granted. On October 15, 2024, the children were ordered to remain in
out-of-home care, and family reunification services were ordered for mother and the
children’s father, Le.V. (father). Mother’s case plan included counseling for parenting,
substance abuse, and anger management. Mother was also required to submit to random
drug testing at least once per month.
During the six-month review period, mother failed to provide proof of enrollment
in counseling for parenting and anger management. Mother was discharged from
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2.
substance abuse counseling due to non-compliance. Mother’s random drug test results
included several missed tests, and two of her results were positive for methamphetamine
and marijuana. The visitation order provided for supervised visits to occur twice per
week for two hours, but mother attended visits monthly for four to six hours. At the
six-month review hearing held on April 15, 2024, family reunification services were
ordered to continue despite findings of minimal progress for both parents.
The department’s report for the 12-month review hearing, dated July 15, 2025,
recommended termination of family reunification services for mother and father.
Supervised visits were cancelled after mother and father failed to appear for multiple
visits. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana on June 11, 2025, and
she failed to appear for her remaining drug tests. A certificate of completion was
provided for a parenting program that had not been approved by the department. The
assigned social worker was unable to obtain any proof of enrollment for anger
management counseling. On July 14, 2025, mother notified the department of her
enrollment at an inpatient substance abuse program.
On July 25, 2025, mother and father were present for the 12-month review
hearing. The juvenile court found mother and father made minimal progress in
alleviating the causes of the children’s out-of-home placement, and it terminated both
parents’ family reunification services. A section 366.26 hearing was set for
November 20, 2025.
The section 366.26 report, dated November 6, 2025, recommended that the
juvenile court terminate the parental rights of mother and father and order a permanent
plan of adoption for the children. The children were placed together in the same resource
family home since August 2024. Mother had 119 potential visits since the children were
removed, but she had only participated in 34 of those visits. The social worker’s
assessment indicated that the children’s relationship with mother had diminished since
their removal. Mother’s relationship with the children was described as minimal, and the
3.
assessment concluded that it would not be detrimental to terminate parental rights. The
children were considered generally adoptable due to their ages and personal
characteristics.
On November 20, 2025, the juvenile court held a section 366.26 hearing for the
children. Mother and father were both present and represented by counsel. Mother’s
counsel objected to the department’s recommendation without presenting any evidence or
argument. The juvenile court then found the children were likely to be adopted,
terminated the parental rights of mother and father, and selected a plan of adoption.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior
Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant’s burden to raise claims of reversible
error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If the
appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th
952, 994.)
In her letter to this court, mother provides new evidence related to progress in her
case plan, and she indicates that maintaining contact between herself and the children
would be in their best interest. She also expresses her goal to achieve reunification with
the children. While we do not doubt mother’s love for her children, her letter brief
furnishes no valid argument with supporting legal authorities for claims of error. (See
In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994 [parents must “ ‘present argument and authority
on each point made’ ”].)
By the time a case reaches the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court has
determined based on extensive evidence that the dependent child cannot be safely
returned to the parent’s custody. At a termination hearing, the juvenile court’s focus is
on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, to order termination of parental
rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely
to be adopted, the court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a
4.
compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under
any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) (exceptions to
adoption).
Mother does not claim the juvenile court’s termination order was in error because
the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption applied. She also failed to
make a request to re-address the issue of reunification by filing a section 388 petition
prior to the termination of her parental rights. Instead, she asserts that this court should
consider her subsequent progress in services. Her reliance on, and citation to facts that
were not presented below is improper. (See People v. St. Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524,
537–538 [“ordinarily matters not presented to the trial court and hence not a proper part
of the record on appeal will not be considered on appeal”]; In re Zeth S. (2003) 31
Cal.4th 396, 399–400 [appellate court generally may not consider postjudgment evidence
outside the record on appeal to reverse juvenile court’s order terminating parental
rights].)
In sum, mother has not raised any arguable issues stemming from the
section 366.26 hearing. Further, though we are not required to, we have reviewed the
record as it relates to the hearing under section 366.26, and we have found no arguable
issues for briefing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–842.) Our review of
the challenged orders confirms counsel’s determination that no arguable issues exist.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.
5.