In re A.A.
Filed 6/21/13 In re A.A. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re A.A. et al., Persons Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
K.C.,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F066804
(Super.
Ct. No. JP000393)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court
of
County. Brian L.
McCabe, Judge.
Amy Tobin,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
K.C.
(mother) appealed from a January 29,
2013 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 366.26) to her three children.
court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court that she found no
arguable issues to raise in this appeal.
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 does exist. (
Mother has filed a letter in which
she challenges a case plan and status review report from July 2012. Otherwise, she acknowledges her prior
mistakes and professes her love for her children. She concludes by asking us to be lenient and
give her another chance.
On review, we conclude mother’s
letter does not amount to a good cause showing that an arguable issue of
reversible error does exist.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order
is presumed correct. (
557, 564.) It is the appellant’s burden
to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and
authority on each point made. If an
appellant fails to do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (In re
Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 (Sade
C.).)
Mother does not raise any claim of
error or other defect against the termination order from which she
appeals. Thus, we have no reason to
reverse or even modify the orders in question.
(Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Instead, mother challenges a case
plan and status review report. The case
plan and report were submitted to the juvenile court at a July 2012 12-month
review hearing, which mother did not attend.
At the hearing’s conclusion, the juvenile court made the necessary
findings to terminate reunification
services and set the section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, which it
ultimately conducted in January 2013. On
this appeal, mother is not entitled to raise issues regarding the July 2012
hearing at which the juvenile court set the section 366.26 hearing, unless she
first sought writ review from this court.
(§ 366.26, subd. (l).) Because mother did not pursue writ review of
the setting order, she has forfeited her argument in this appeal. (Ibid.)
Once the court terminated mother’s
reunification services, the focus shifted to the needs of the children for
permanency and stability. (
309.) At the termination hearing, the
court’s proper focus was on the children to determine whether it was likely the
children would be adopted and if so, to order termination of parental
rights.
Because mother has not made a good
cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error occurred at the
termination hearing, we will dismiss her appeal. (Sade
C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
DISPOSITION
This
appeal is dismissed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All
statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise
indicated.
