In re S.C.
Filed 12/19/08 In re S.C. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re S.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B210082 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK36194) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.A., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephen Marpet, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed by opinion.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Appellant T.A. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights as to the minor S.C. Under In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
S.C., born in April 1999, first came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) at birth when she was born with a positive toxicology screen for cocaine. Mother successfully reunified with S.C. and dependency jurisdiction was terminated in April 2002.
In July 2006, the Department filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (j),[1]alleging that S.C. was at risk because of Mothers drug use, purchase of drugs with AFDC funds, failure to ensure S.C.s regular school attendance, and the current and former dependency of S.C.s siblings. The juvenile court detained her and ultimately sustained the section 300 petition as amended. At the August 2006 disposition hearing, the juvenile court denied reunification services to Mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10), (11) and (13), and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26, with the permanent plan identified as adoption.
In September 2007, S.C. was placed in the home of her prospective adoptive family. After several continuances for the purpose of enabling the Department to provide proper notice to S.C.s father, the juvenile court held a section 366.26 hearing in July 2008 and terminated Mothers parental rights as to S.C. Mother appealed.
In a letter filed on October 15, 2008, Mothers appointed counsel advised this court in writing that after reviewing the record and researching potential issues, she was unable to file an opening brief on the merits on Mothers behalf. The same day, we notified Mother that she had 30 days within which to submit by letter or brief any arguments or contentions she wished this court to consider. Mother filed a letter on November 13, 2008, which described her employment and housing situation since moving out of state and requested that S.C. be returned to her.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and present argument and authority on each point made [citations]. If he does not, he may, in the courts discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that event, it may order dismissal. [Citation.] Such a result is appropriate here. With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, [we are] presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of any unraised pointsand, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. [Citation.] (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994, fn. omitted.)
Having reviewed Mothers letter, we conclude that she raises no issue cognizable on appeal. While we commend Mother for the positive steps she reports, her letter does not provide any reasoned argument or authority showing that any of the juvenile courts procedural or substantive rulings, as to matters properly within the scope of this appeal, constituted reversible error. Pursuant to In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at page 994, we deem Mothers appeal as having been implicitly abandoned and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal filed August 11, 2008 is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
_____________________, J.
DOI TODD
We concur:
____________________________, P. J.
BOREN
____________________________, J.
CHAVEZ
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
