In re Andrea B.
Filed 8/6/13 In re Andrea B. CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
TWO
In re ANDREA B. et al., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B247104
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. CK69784)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANDRE B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Andre B.
(appellant) appeals from an order entered on December 4, 2012,
terminating his parental rights to the children, Andrea B.
(Andrea) and Ariel M. (Ariel) (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)
This is the second
appeal involving this family, and our brief summary of the factual and
procedural background is largely taken from our opinion in the prior
appeal. (In re Andrea B. (Aug. 23,
2012, B234551) [nonpub. opn.].)
On August 30, 2007, the Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS) removed Andrea, who was born with
congenital abnormalities from her parents’ custody. She was placed with her grandmother on October 17, 2007. (In re
Andrea B., supra, B234551, at
p. 2) Several months later, DCFS
removed Andrea from her grandmother’s custody and placed her in a foster
home. (In re Andrea B., supra,
B234551, at p. 4.) The guardianship
eventually was terminated, and on August
23, 2012, we affirmed the juvenile court’s order. (In re
Andrea B., supra, B234551, at
p. 2.)
Meanwhile, Andrea’s younger sister
Ariel was also removed from her parents’ custody. (In re
Andrea B., supra, B234551, at
p. 7.) She was eventually placed
into a preadoptive foster home with Andrea.
On June 5, 2012, DCFS reported for a hearing under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 366.26 that a prospective home-studied adoptive
parent had been identified for both girls.
Both children were thriving in her care and the caregiver was committed
to adopting them. DCFS recommended that
the juvenile court terminate parental rights and free the children for
adoption.
On December 4, 2012, the
rights. Appellant timely appealed, and
counsel was appointed to represent him.
On May 3,
2013, after examination of the record and the juvenile court file and
discussing the issues on appeal with the California Appellate Project,
appellant’s court-appointed counsel advised this court in writing that she was
unable to file an opening brief on appellant’s behalf on the merits. We thereafter notified appellant, on May 3, 2013, that he had 30 days
within which to personally submit any argument he wished this court to consider
and that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal as
abandoned.
On May 30,
2013, appellant filed a handwritten letter in which he informed this court that
he had an out-of-state family emergency that left him stranded for a couple of
months and without his medication. Now
that he has insurance and is back on his medication, he has requested a second
chance with his children. These facts do
not present an issue cognizable on appeal.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c).) At this point, the children’s need for
permanence and stability is paramount. (
1792, 1799.) Therefore, under the
holdings of In re Sade C. (1996) 13
Cal.4th 952 and In re Phoenix H.
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, the appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
name="_ftn1" title="">* BOREN,
P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
