In re E.P.
Filed 2/4/10 In re E.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.P., Defendant and Appellant. | F058759 (Super. Ct. No. 08CEJ300116-1) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Mary Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
E.P. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to her 17-month-old namesake.[1] Mothers court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court that she was not filing an opening brief pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 for lack of an arguable issue to raise. In turn, this court extended time for mother to personally file a letter brief which she has since done.
In her letter brief, mother asks for an opportunity to show she is in the process of changing her life. She mentions she has completed two months of a four-and-a-half month drug program. Mothers request does not amount, however, to an argument that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994). Consequently, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Mother and her daughter tested positive for cocaine at the childs birth. In time, Fresno County Superior Court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the child, removed her from mothers custody, and granted mother reunification services. Those services included drug treatment. Despite 12 months of reunification services, mother failed to successfully reunify with the child.
Initially, mother made sufficient progress in a residential treatment program so that her daughter was placed in mothers care. That placement only lasted approximately three weeks, however, as mother repeatedly left the program for extended periods of time and stopped attending all of the required courses. After her daughter was redetained, mother resumed participating in services. However, within a few months time, she relapsed and renewed her use of cocaine. When mother failed to reunify with her daughter, the court set a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the child ( 366.26).
Respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services later reported that the child was likely to be adopted and recommended the court order termination of parental rights. A psychologist, who conducted a bonding study between mother and her daughter, concluded they did not have a parent/child relationship and the child did not have a substantial and positive emotional attachment to mother. Further, the child would not be greatly harmed if the court terminated parental rights.
Mother attended the section 366.26 hearing and testified on her own behalf. In mothers opinion, there was a good bond between her and her daughter and it would benefit the child to continue their parent/child relationship. Mother also wanted the court to know she was staying clean and sober and had been since her last relapse.
Following closing arguments, the court found the child adoptable and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
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., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, we have no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. (Ibid.)
In essence, mother asks this court for another chance to reunify. However, she cannot point to any error on the superior courts part in not granting her that opportunity.
In addition, mother overlooks the childs need at this late stage for permanence and stability, which could best be achieved through adoption. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) A section 366.26 hearing is designed to protect a childs compelling rights to have a placement that is stable, permanent, and that allows the caretaker to make a full emotional commitment to the child. (Id. at p. 306.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, adoption is the norm. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)
Under these circumstances, we conclude mother has not identified any arguable claim of error and is not entitled to any relief from the order terminating parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Hill, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
