In re A.V.
Filed 4/25/06 In re A.V. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re A.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. V.V., Defendant and Appellant. | E039629 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ109261) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed.
Andrea R. St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
V.V. (mother), the mother of A.V. (child), appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights. The child is presently two years old. The father of the child is a convicted murderer serving a life term and not a party to this appeal.
On January 12, 2005, the child, who was then nine months old, was taken to the hospital with retinal, subarchnoid and subdural hemorrhages. The injuries were consistent with shaken baby syndrome and incompatible with the explanation given by mother and others as to how they occurred. They claimed that the child fell on his buttocks as he attempted to walk or pull himself up and then threw himself backwards from a sitting position onto a carpeted floor.
On January 18, 2005, a petition was filed on the child's behalf pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (e), and (g).[1]
A combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing was eventually held on July 26, 2005. No testimony was taken. Mother submitted on the reports filed with the court. The court sustained the petition and declared the child a dependent of the court. The court denied reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5).
Mother filed a petition for a writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a). We denied the petition in an unpublished opinion filed October 5, 2005 (E038616).
A contested section 366.26 hearing was held on January 3, 2006. Mother testified at that hearing regarding her relationship with the child, and she wanted her child returned to her. The court terminated the rights of both parents and found that the child is adoptable and that none of the exceptions to adoption applied. The child is living with his aunt and her husband and their three older daughters. They wish to adopt him.
Mother has appealed, and at her request we appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of facts and requesting this court to undertake an independent review of the entire record.
We provided mother with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief which she has done. We have read and considered it.
We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
Acting P.J.
We concur:
/s/ Richli
J.
/s/ King
J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Apartment Manager Attorneys.
