Fear Not Law Articles: In re C.S.

In re C.S.

Filed 10/3/07 In re C.S. CA5

Received for posting 10/9/2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

JO ANN S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F052277

(Super. Ct. No. 06CEJ300125-1)

O P I N I O N

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.)

Darlene A. Kelly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Jo Ann S. appeals from a February 2007 order selecting legal guardianship as a permanent plan for her son, C.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subds. (c)(4)(A) & (d).)^{^[1]} C.S. has been a dependent child since 2001. He suffers from Aspergers Syndrome and, though high-functioning, his behaviors were once unpredictable and aggressive. Meanwhile, appellant suffered from depression and anxiety and could not manage her son. In 2003, the juvenile court selected long-term foster care as a permanent plan for C.S. As of 2006, appellant had ameliorated the conditions leading to C.S.s dependency and wished to resume custody. However, C.S., by then a teenager, had bonded with his foster parents and wanted them to become his legal guardians. This led to contested proceedings in August 2006, following which the juvenile court, first, denied appellants petition to regain custody ( 388) and then, set a section 366.26 hearing to consider legal guardianship as a permanent plan for C.S. We affirmed the courts orders in an unpublished opinion, Jo Ann S. v. Superior Court (Nov. 20, 2006,F051132 [nonpub. opn.]).

In February 2007, the court conducted a contested section 366.26 hearing, at which C.S., his social worker and appellant testified. Once the matter was submitted, the court selected legal guardianship as a permanent plan for C.S. and appointed his foster parents as his legal guardians.

Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated May 1, 2007, advising that no brief would be forthcoming as there were no arguable issues (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order dated May 3, 2007, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief. Appellant subsequently filed such a letter brief with this court.^{^[2]}

In large part, appellant complains that, over the course of C.S.s dependency, the department has displayed bias against her in several respects and has filed belatedly some of its reports with the superior court. None of these complaints is reviewable by this court. First, appellant fails to connect her criticisms of the department to any claim that the superior court committed error. An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. An appellant must raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) Second, even assuming some connection, appellants complaints relate to matters dating as far back as 2001 and, in any event, well preceding the superior courts February 2007 legal guardianship order. Our appellate jurisdiction to review a decision of the superior court, however, depends upon a timely notice of appeal. (In re Elizabeth G. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1327, 1331.) An appeal from the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed. (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563.)

Appellant also makes an argument related to the February 2007 proceedings. She contends the superior court partially relied on C.S.s testimony in reaching its decision. She claims there was evidence in the record, dating back to 2005, that C.S., by virtue of his Aspergers Syndrome, might perceive and feel things differently from other children such that he lacked the ability to understand the concept of legal guardianship, had lied in the past, and might answer questions without much thought. Thus, appellant appears to claim there was insufficient evidence to support the courts decision because the court should not have given weight to C.S.s testimony.

Once again, appellant misunderstands our role as an appellate court. The power of an appellate court, when asked to assess the sufficiency of the evidence, begins and ends with a determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether or not contradicted, which will support the conclusion of the trier of fact. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378-1379.) All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to uphold the decision, if possible. We may not reweigh or express an independent judgment on the evidence. (In re Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, 833.) In this regard, issues of fact and credibility are matters for the trial court alone. (In re Amy M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 849, 859-860. Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument, that the evidence to which appellant cites is not stale, it was up to the superior court to determine what weight it should give C.S.s testimony.

Having reviewed appellants letter brief and the record herein, we conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the courts decision. Having found no claim of trial court error in appellants letter as to matters within the scope of this appeal, we conclude appellant has legally abandoned the appeal from the order terminating her parental rights and will dismiss this appeal. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.

^*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.

^{^[1]} All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

^{^[2]} Indeed, so has respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services despite the lack of any briefing order from this court.

Description	Jo Ann S. appeals from a February 2007 order selecting legal guardianship as a permanent plan for her son, C.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subds. (c)(4)(A) & (d).)[1] C.S. has been a dependent child since 2001. He suffers from Aspergers Syndrome and, though high-functioning, his behaviors were once unpredictable and aggressive. Meanwhile, appellant suffered from depression and anxiety and could not manage her son. In 2003, the juvenile court selected long-term foster care as a permanent plan for C.S. As of 2006, appellant had ameliorated the conditions leading to C.S.s dependency and wished to resume custody. However, C.S., by then a teenager, had bonded with his foster parents and wanted them to become his legal guardians. This led to contested proceedings in August 2006, following which the juvenile court, first, denied appellants petition to regain custody ( 388) and then, set a section 366.26 hearing to consider legal guardianship as a permanent plan for C.S. We affirmed the courts orders in an unpublished opinion, Jo Ann S. v. Superior Court (Nov. 20, 2006,F051132 [nonpub. opn.]). Having reviewed appellants letter brief and the record herein, Court conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the courts decision.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.