In re A.L.
Filed 7/16/13 In re A.L. CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 A.L.
et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY
CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
B.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A137666
(Contra
Costa County
Super. Ct.
No. J1101032, J1200703)
B.M.
(Mother) appeals orders of the juvenile
court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code
section 388 petitions and orders terminating her parental rights to her
two daughters, A.L. and V.S.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
A
section 300 petition was filed as to then five-year-old A.L. in July 2011. Mother waived
in November 2011, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and
ordered a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26 (.26
hearing). The court advised Mother that
she needed to file a petition for an extraordinary writ in order to seek
appellate review of the order setting the .26 hearing. The record contains no indication that Mother
filed a writ petition.
A
section 300 petition was filed as to then one-month-old V.S. in May 2012. At the recommendation of Children and Family
Services (the Department), the juvenile court denied Mother reunification
services as to V.S. on August 24, 2012 and set a .26 hearing. The court again advised Mother of the need to
file a petition for extraordinary writ in order to preserve her appellate
rights. The record contains no
indication that she filed such a petition.
Mother
filed petitions pursuant to section 388 as to both children on September 25, 2012, seeking
reunification services and contending her circumstances had changed in that she
had attended a substance abuse and anger
management program while incarcerated, she had completed parenting classes,
and she had applied for a residential program.
On December 12, 2012,
the juvenile court found there had been no change in circumstance that would
justify changing the order denying reunification services and that services
would not be in V.S.’s best interest, and denied the section 388 petition as to
V.S. The court found V.S. would be
adopted and that there was no significant relationship between Mother and V.S.,
and terminated Mother’s parental rights to V.S.
At the same hearing, Mother withdrew her section 388 petition as to
A.L. On January 11, 2013, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s
parental rights to A.L.
Mother’s
appointed counsel has filed a no issues statement pursuant to
stating that she has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues to
raise on appeal. Counsel has also
informed Mother that she may file a letter with the court suggesting errors to
be reviewed on appeal. Mother has
responded with a letter that presents various issues she believes this court
should review.
The
juvenile court’s decision is presumed correct unless appellant can establish
that the trial court has committed prejudicial error. “An appealed-from judgment or order is
presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a
challenge. In doing so, he must raise
claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘present argument
and authority on each point made’ [citations].
If he does not, he may, in the court’s discretion, be deemed to have
abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that event, it may order dismissal.†(In re
Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p.
994.)
We
have reviewed Mother’s letter brief, and conclude she has raised no arguable
issues regarding the orders from which she timely appealed. Mother did not challenge the orders setting
the .26 hearings by petition for extraordinary writ, and has accordingly
forfeited her challenge to those orders.
(See § 366.26, subd. (l)(1)
& (2).) Mother’s letter brief
provides no reasoned argument or authority showing the trial court abused its
discretion in denying her section 388 petition as to V.S. or that its actions
at the .26 hearings were improper.
Having
found no cognizable claim of trial court error in Mother’s letter brief, we
conclude Mother has implicitly abandoned her appeal.
The
appeal is dismissed.
_________________________
Rivera,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1]
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title=""> [2]
Mother’s notices of appeal state they are from “all orders.†The children’s fathers are not parties to
this appeal.
