In re T.J.
Filed 12/17/08 In re T.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 T.J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.S., Defendant and Appellant. | F055862 (Super. Ct. Nos. 72678-4, 5) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Roland Simoncini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
T.S. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 ) to his twin daughters.[1] Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter filed October 8, 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). We thereafter extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief which he has done. In it, he contends respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) failed to contact his family members apparently regarding placement when the information had been provided. He also states he had insufficient counsel though he does not explain how so. Having reviewed the appellate record as summarized below, we conclude appellants contentions do not amount to claims that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994) and will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
In October 2007, the Fresno County Superior Court exercised its dependency jurisdiction ( 300, subds. (b) [neglect] & (j) [abuse of a sibling]) over appellants twin daughters and, having adjudged them juvenile dependents, removed them from parental custody. It also authorized the department to place the twins with a mentor, Y.M. The placement change occurred in November 2007 and the twins have lived in the mentors home ever since. Although the court gave appellant notice of his appellate remedy, he did not appeal from the courts dispositional orders.
A month before the October dispositional hearing, the court ordered appellant to promptly meet with the childrens social worker and provide the names of his relatives to be evaluated for placement purposes. Appellant however did not provide the information to the social worker. In November 2007, another social worker contacted appellant for his relative information. Appellant provided relatives names but no contact information. The social worker followed up with a letter to appellant requesting contact and additional identifying information. However, appellant did not comply with the request.
At a January 2008 status review hearing, the court terminated reunification services for appellant who had made no progress in reunifying with his daughters.[2] The court also found the twins current placement was appropriate. The court in turn set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement permanent plans for the twins. The court served appellant with written notice of the setting order and his writ remedy if he wished to challenge the courts decision ( 366.26, subd. (l)). Appellant did not seek writ review from this court.
In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, the department filed a 366.26 WIC Report in which it recommended the court find the twins adoptable and terminate parental rights. The mentor caregiver for the twins was committed to adopting them. The department also reported that appellant was nothing more than a friendly stranger with the twins, having had few visits with them.
The court conducted a section 366.26 hearing in the twins case in June 2008. At the June hearing, appellants trial counsel complained appellant had not been receiving any visitation. The court noted and confirmed that appellant had not filed a statement of contested issues so at most the court would refer the case to the consortium. Counsel asked the court to make the referral which the court did. It then found the children adoptable, and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 . . . .) Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect (see ibid.), and present argument and authority on each point made (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591 . . .; accord, In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 278 . . .). If he does not, he may, in the courts discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. (Berger v. Godden [(1985)] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113] at p. 1119.) In that event, it may order dismissal. (Ibid.) Such a result is appropriate here. With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal was 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. (See People v. Brigham (1979) 25 Cal.3d 283, 289 . . . .) (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Having reviewed his letter brief and the record herein, we conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the courts decision. To the extent he questions the departments effort at contacting his family members for placement purposes, we disagree with him. According to the record, it was he who did not cooperate with the department in terms of providing contact and other identifying information about his relatives. In addition, the court authorized the childrens placement with the mentor caregiver in its October 2007 dispositional order which appellant never appealed. Furthermore, appellant did not seek writ review of the January 2008 setting order in which the court found the twins placement was appropriate. Having failed to appeal from the October 2007 dispositional order and seek writ review of the January 2008 setting order, appellant has waived the opportunity to challenge the twins placement at this point. ( 395, 366.26, subd. (l); Steven J.v.Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811.)
As to appellants criticism of his trial counsel, appellant fails to explain either in what respect his attorney was ineffective or how such ineffectiveness prejudiced appellants rights. It is not this courts task to search the record for support of his contention. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Hill, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2]The court had denied the mother services based on her prior failure to reunify with other children.
