In re C.J.
Filed 9/30/08 In re C.J. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re C.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.T., Defendant and Appellant. | F055397 (Super. Ct. No. 94163-5) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Caroline J. Todd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Janelle E. Kelley, Interim County Counsel, Fresno County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Mother S.T. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 ) to her six-year-old daughter C.J.[1] The mothers appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated July 10, 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). After this court extended time for the mother to personally file a letter brief, she submitted a letter in which she professed her love and her desire to care for C.J. The mother attached to her letter a highlighted excerpt from a social workers report describing visits between C.J., her older siblings and the mother.
However, the mother failed to identify any error by the trial court in reaching its decision. Her omission is fatal to her appeal.
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 . . . .) Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect (see ibid.), and present argument and authority on each point made (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591 . . .; accord, In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 278 . . .). If he does not, he may, in the court's discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. (Berger v. Godden [(1985)] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113] at p. 1119.) . . . With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal [is] presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of any unraised pointsand, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. (See People v. Brigham (1979) 25 Cal.3d 283, 289 . . . .) (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Because the mother has failed to raise a claim of prejudicial error by the trial court which is supported by the record and the law (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994), we will affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Wiseman, J., and Dawson, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
