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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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