legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re S.H.

In re S.H.
07:27:2013





In re S




 

 

In re S.H.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 7/16/13 
In re S.H. CA5

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 
>










In re S.H., a Person
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


 


 

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES,

            Plaintiff
and Respondent,

            v.

J.H.,

            Defendant and Appellant.


F066845

(Super. Ct. No. 12CEJ300087-1)

> 

>O P I N I O N


THE COURThref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">* 

            APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Fresno
County.  Mary Dolas, Judge.

            Roland
Simoncini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            J.H. (mother) appealed from a February 2013 juvenile
court order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)
to her 16-month-old daughter, S.href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1]  This court previously upheld the juvenile
court’s decision to remove S. from parental custody, deny mother href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">reunification services, and set the
termination hearing.  (>J.H. v. Superior Court (Jan. 15, 2013,
F065695 [nonpub. opn.].)  

After reviewing the entire record,
mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he could find no
arguable issues to raise on mother’s
behalf.  Counsel requested and this court
granted leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause
showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did exist.  (In re
Phoenix H.
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)

            Mother has
now submitted a letter asking that S. either be placed with her or with
mother’s family.  Mother’s letter neither
addresses the termination proceedings nor sets forth a good cause showing that
any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing does
exist.  (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) 

            An
appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct.  (Denham
v. Superior Court
(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)  It is up to an appellant to raise claims of
reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each
point made.  If an appellant does not do
so, the appeal should be dismissed.  (>In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952,
994.)  Here, mother does not raise any
claim of error or other defect against the termination order from which she
appealed.

            At the
termination hearing, the juvenile court’s proper focus was on S. and her need
for permanency and stability.  (>In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295,
309.)  The law required the court to
determine whether it was likely she would be adopted and if so, order
termination of parental rights. 
(§ 366.26; In re Celine R. (2003)
31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)  Returning S. to
mother’s custody or placing her for the first time with mother’s family was not
an option at the termination hearing. 

DISPOSITION

            This appeal
is dismissed.





id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">*           Before
Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.

id=ftn2>

href="#_ftnref2"
name="_ftn2" title="">[1]           All
further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise indicated.








Description J.H. (mother) appealed from a February 2013 juvenile court order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her 16-month-old daughter, S.[1] This court previously upheld the juvenile court’s decision to remove S. from parental custody, deny mother reunification services, and set the termination hearing. (J.H. v. Superior Court (Jan. 15, 2013, F065695 [nonpub. opn.].)
After reviewing the entire record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
Mother has now submitted a letter asking that S. either be placed with her or with mother’s family. Mother’s letter neither addresses the termination proceedings nor sets forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing does exist. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.)
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale