In re C.Y.
Filed 8/31/09 In re C.Y. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.Y. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Y.Y., Defendant and Appellant. | F057686 (Super. Ct. Nos. 08CEJ300062-8 & 08CEJ300062-9) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane A. Cardoza, Judge.
Carol Koenig, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Y.Y. is the father of many children who have been removed from his custody and that of the childrens mother due to the parents substance abuse problems. The couples two youngest children have been freed for adoption after neither parent could successfully reunify with them within statutory permissible time limits. Father appeals from the order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26 ) to his two youngest children.[1]
Fathers appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter filed July 28, 2009, advising this court that she would not be filing a brief pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952. We extended time for father to personally file a letter brief which he has since done. In his letter, he describes his current circumstances and his desire to have his children returned to him.
However, he does not argue that the juvenile court committed any error in deciding to terminate his parental rights. We thus conclude appellants remarks do not amount to claims that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994) and will affirm.
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.) (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Without some claim of error which we might review, there is no reason to even consider reversing the juvenile courts order.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
