Filed 8/26/26 In re A.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re A.H. et al., Persons Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL F090952
SERVICES,
(Super. Ct. Nos. 25CEJ300107-2,
Plaintiff and Respondent, 25CEJ300107-3, 25CEJ300107-4)
v.
OPINION
J.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of County. Brian M. Arax, Judge.
J.P., in pro. per., and Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
-ooOoo-
* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.
J.P. (mother) is the mother of Andrew H., Michael H., and L.H. (collectively, “the
children”), who are the subjects of this dependency case. Mother appealed from a
juvenile court order terminating its jurisdiction and awarding the children’s father,
Robert H. (father), custody of the children. After reviewing the court record, mother’s
court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on
mother’s behalf. This court granted mother leave to personally file a letter setting forth a
good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H.
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) Mother filed a letter brief but failed to make
such a showing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2025, the Fresno County Department of Human Services (department)
received multiple referrals alleging neglect by mother. Mother was hospitalized pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code section 51501 on two separate occasions while the
children were in her care. On May 30, 2025, law enforcement responded to the home
after a cleaning crew found the children were left alone in the unclean home. Mother had
been absent for approximately three to four days, and she was located at the airport in
Fresno. Each of the children were described as having intellectual delays, and the
children’s 17-year-old sister, A.A., had epilepsy. The children were taken into protective
custody by law enforcement.
On June 3, 2025, the department filed an original petition alleging the children
were described by section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The petition alleged the children were
at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm in mother’s care. The allegations
involved mother’s untreated mental health issues, which prevented her from providing a
safe and clean home environment for the children.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2.
At the detention hearing held on June 4, 2025, mother and father were present, and
both parents were appointed counsel. The children were detained from mother’s custody,
and extended visits were ordered to occur between children and father. Supervised visits
were ordered between mother and the children. A combined jurisdiction and disposition
hearing was set for July 2, 2025.
The department’s jurisdiction and disposition report recommended the allegations
in the original petition be found true. As to disposition, the department recommended the
children and siblings, A.A. and R.P., be removed from mother’s custody, and the children
were to be placed in the custody of father with family maintenance services.
Enhancement services were recommended for mother as to the children, and family
reunification services were recommended for mother as to A.A. and R.P.
The social worker referred mother to a parenting program, substance abuse
orientation, domestic violence assessment, random drug testing, and mental health
assessment. Mother had not engaged in services or visits with the children at the time of
the report. Father’s living situation was described as “stable,” but he was currently living
with his sister. Each day he would make breakfast and plan out the children’s day.
Father was referred to a parenting program, domestic violence assessment, and mental
health assessment.
At the initial jurisdiction and disposition hearing, mother and father were both
present and represented by counsel. Mother appeared for the hearing via
videoconferencing. The hearing was continued at the request of the department to
August 13, 2025.
An addendum report, dated August 11, 2025, provided an update on the parents’
services and visitation. Mother had not attended her substance use orientation, domestic
violence assessment, or mental health assessment. Father began his parenting program
on July 7, 2025.
3.
Mother missed her first scheduled visits in July 2025. A July 21, 2025, visit was
cancelled due to mother being in the hospital. On July 28, 2025, mother had her first visit
with the children and A.A. Andrew H. informed mother that father’s girlfriend “squished
him against the fence” after he crossed a street to get a snack. Mother became extremely
upset, jumped out of her seat, and asked the visitation supervisor to leave the room. The
visitation supervisor attempted to provide an explanation for the girlfriend’s actions, but
mother claimed the behavior was abusive toward Andrew. Mother left the visit and a
referral was received by the department’s hotline.
The continued jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on August 13, 2025.
Mother was present in court, and she entered an objection to the allegations in the
petition. As to disposition, mother expressed her disagreement with the placement of the
children in father’s custody. She identified concerns with the children’s lack of
relationship with father and school placement. Her counsel submitted on dispositional
issues without providing any additional evidence.
The juvenile court followed the department’s recommendation to sustain the
allegations in the original petition, remove the children from mother’s custody, place the
children in father’s custody, and provide family maintenance services to father.
Enhancement services were provided to mother for the children, and reasonable
supervised visits were ordered between mother and the children at a minimum of once
per month. An interim review hearing was set for November 12, 2025.
A family maintenance review report, dated November 6, 2025, recommended the
dependency be dismissed, and father was to be granted sole legal and physical custody of
the children. Father maintained consistent communication with the department, and he
was compliant with his services. The children were observed to be doing well with no
safety concerns, and they reported being happy and safe in the care of father. The
department’s assessment concluded there were no concerns to warrant continued
dependency of the children.
4.
At the interim review hearing, mother and father were both present and
represented by counsel. Mother entered an objection to the department’s
recommendation, and she intended to raise her concerns with the court mediator. The
hearing was continued and set with an exit mediation for December 15, 2025.
Both parents appeared at the combined interim review and exit mediation hearing.
Counsel for the department, children, and father submitted on the department’s
recommendation to terminate dependency with custody of the children awarded to father.
Mother objected to the recommended custody orders without presenting argument or
evidence. Her counsel expressed her belief that father was not complying with domestic
violence orders, and she was advised that she could seek modification in family court by
demonstrating a change in circumstances in the future.
The court followed the department’s recommendation to dismiss dependency with
sole physical and legal custody of the children to father. Mother was ordered weekly
supervised visits with the child. Father’s counsel was ordered to prepare and file the
formal custody and visitation order.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior
Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 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 the
appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th
952, 994.)
In her letter brief, mother attempts to raise the following issues: (1) meaningful
access to reunification services pursuant to section 361.5 and 362; (2) meaningful access
to counsel and effective participation in dependency proceedings; (3) procedural fairness
and adequate notice and participation; (4) whether material evidence relevant to Family
Code section 3044 and child safety concerns were adequately presented and considered;
5.
and (5) whether cumulative procedural deficiencies substantially interfered with her
ability to reunify with the children.
Mother’s letter brief does not directly address the juvenile court’s custody orders.
Mother primarily complains about barriers to participating in reunification services, but
the juvenile court was not required to order reunification services where the children
were placed with a formerly noncustodial parent. (See § 361.2, subd. (a).) Furthermore,
mother does not point to any evidence in the record to show her trial attorney’s
representation was substandard or that, even assuming he acted in the way mother
describes, the court would have ruled differently.
Finally, mother fails to cite to any evidence of substantial safety risks that would
have required the juvenile court to maintain its jurisdiction over the children. The court
“must terminate dependency jurisdiction unless either the parent, the guardian, the child,
or the social services agency establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the
conditions justifying assumption of jurisdiction exist or will exist if supervision is
withdrawn.” (In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1155–1156; § 364,
subd. (c).)
“When proceeding under section 364, because the child is in placement with a
parent, the [juvenile] court is not concerned with reunification, but with determining
whether continued supervision is necessary in the family home.” (In re Gabriel L. (2009)
172 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) When the social services agency has recommended
termination of jurisdiction, termination is the “ ‘default result’ ” unless the parent objects
and then establishes the existence of conditions justifying retention of jurisdiction. (In re
Aurora P., supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.)
Because mother—the appealing party—failed to carry her burden of proof below,
we determine “whether the evidence compels a finding” in his favor “as a matter of law”
by examining whether father’s evidence was “(1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and
(2) ‘of such a character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that it
6.
was insufficient to support [the court’s] finding.’ ” (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th
1517, 1528, overruled in part on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 989, 1010 & fn. 7.)
Having reviewed mother’s letter brief, we find mother has not made a showing of
good cause that an arguable issue exists. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 846.)
Mother’s letter brief furnishes no valid argument with supporting legal authorities for her
purported claims of error. (See In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994 [the appellant
must “ ‘present argument and authority on each point made’ ”].) Nor does mother show
that any claims of error, assuming they were true, constitute a basis for reversing the
underlying orders.
In sum, mother has not raised any arguable issues stemming from the hearing
dismissing dependency. Further, though we are not required to, we have reviewed the
record as it relates to the custody orders, and we have found no arguable issues for
briefing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–842.) Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.
7.
