In re Danielle T.

Filed 8/26/08 In re Danielle T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Judy Fridkis, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Yolanda G., in pro. per., and Andre F. F. Toscano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Minors.

* * * * * *

We affirm orders terminating mother Yolanda G.s parental rights as to Danielle T. (born January 2005) and R.T. (born September 2006) and denying her request for return of her children to her custody.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The minors were removed from the custody of Yolanda G. shortly after the birth of R., who was born with a positive toxicology screen for amphetamine. They were originally placed at home with their father. No reunification services were ordered for appellant due to an unsuccessfully prior dependency proceeding involving an older son, Arnold R. Placement with father was not successful and Danielle and R. were removed on November 9, 2006. The children were moved from placement to placement until they were finally placed with a relative for adoption. Both children had been found eligible for Regional Center services.

The matter was on calendar on January 3, 2008, for a contested hearing on termination of mothers parental rights and consideration of mothers petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 for reunification services for her and father. Both parents were present, though in custody. The court denied the section 388 motion, and terminated parental rights at the conclusion of the hearing. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from those orders.

DISCUSSION

On January 28, 2008, we appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal.

On March 7, 2008, after examination of the record and the juvenile court file, researching potential issues, and discussing the issues on appeal with appellants trial counsel and the California Appellate Project, appellants court-appointed counsel advised this court in writing that he was unable to file an opening brief on appellants behalf on the merits. We thereafter notified appellant, on March 12, 2008, that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any argument she wished this court to consider and that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal as abandoned.

On April 24, 2008, appellant filed a handwritten letter in which she informed this court that she is presently incarcerated in Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, California, that she loves her daughters and is getting help for her drug addiction and intends to continue treatment after her release. Appellant has asked for reconsideration of her case. These facts do not present any issue cognizable on appeal.

Appellant has not suggested there was any error in the proceedings or that there is any legal basis for reversal. Her lawyer found no error and our own independent review of the record has revealed no reason to question the trial courts decision. As a result, the orders must be affirmed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952.)

DISPOSITION

The orders terminating parental rights are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

_______________________, Acting P. J.

DOI TODD

We concur:

_______________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST

_______________________, J.

CHAVEZ

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com