In re M.H.













Filed 8/8/12 In
re M.H. CA1/4

>

>

>

>

>

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
FOUR




>

In re M.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCUS H., Defendant and Appellant.	A134500 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD073370)

This
court previously denied a petition for extraordinary
writ relief filed by appellant Marcus H. (father) after the juvenile
court set a permanency planning hearing as to his daughter, M.H. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 366.26). (>Marcus H. v. Superior Court
(May 13, 2011, A131461) [nonpub. opn.].)
The juvenile court thereafter terminated father’s parental rights,
concluding that father had not established that an exception to the termination
of parental rights applied. This timely appeal followed.

On
June 7, 2012, father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a no issues
statement in accordance with In re
Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 and In
re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, stating that she had
reviewed the record and concluded that there were no arguable issues to raise
on appeal. Father wrote to this court on
July 3, acknowledging that he made mistakes early in the proceedings, but
stating that he wants to maintain a relationship with the minor.

Although
this court has discretion under In re
Sade C. to conduct an independent review of the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues for briefing, we decline to do so
here. The juvenile court’s judgment is
presumed correct. It is up to appellant
to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and
authority on each point made. (>In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Although father’s letter to this court professes heartfelt devotion to
the minor, it does not provide any reasoned argument regarding any claim of href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">reversible error or other defect in the
juvenile court proceedings. (>Ibid.)
We decline to proceed to consider the merits of the juvenile court’s
rulings.

The
appeal is dismissed.





_________________________

Sepulveda,
J.*



We concur:



_________________________

Ruvolo, P. J.



_________________________

Rivera, J.

















*
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate
District, Division 4, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.