Filed 5/21/18 In re Hazel G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 HAZEL G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DANIEL G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F076564
(Super. Ct. No. JJV069286B)

OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Judge.
Carolyn S. Hurley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Daniel G. is the biological father of now four-year-old Hazel G. On October 31, 2017, the juvenile court terminated his parental rights as to Hazel (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and he appealed. After reviewing the juvenile court record, Daniel’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on Daniel’s behalf. This court granted Daniel leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Daniel filed a letter in which he objects to the termination of his parental rights, claims his trial attorney was ineffective and he did not know he could visit Hazel and denies refusing to attend a court hearing.
We conclude Daniel failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In October 2015, then two-year-old Hazel, her seven-year-old brother and 13-month-old twin sisters were removed from their mother, Jessica, after law enforcement investigated a report that Jessica was using and selling “crack and crank.” The home was unsafe and unsanitary and there was methamphetamine and a sharp knife within the children’s reach. Jessica was arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine. The Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) placed the children together in foster care.
Jessica identified Daniel as Hazel’s father. They were not married and he was not listed on Hazel’s birth certificate. However, he was present for Hazel’s birth and financially assisted Jessica during her pregnancy with Hazel. Jessica said Daniel was in prison.
In October 2015, the juvenile court ordered the children detained and appointed counsel for Jessica as well as the three fathers of her children, including Daniel, who the court noted was incarcerated in Susanville.
Daniel waived his appearance for the jurisdictional hearing, which was conducted in November 2015. His trial attorney submitted the matter on the agency’s evidence and the juvenile court found the children were described by section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). Daniel also waived his appearance for the dispositional hearing the following month. His attorney appeared on his behalf and submitted the matter. The court ordered reunification services for Jessica but not for Daniel because he was Hazel’s biological father and had not demonstrated that services would benefit her. The court also declined to order visits for Daniel, finding that visitation would be detrimental to Hazel. The court scheduled the six-month review hearing for early June 2016.
In May 2016, Daniel contacted a social worker, stating he had been recently released from custody and wanted to begin visitation and reunify with Hazel. The social worker told him to contact his attorney and gave him his attorney’s telephone number.
By June 2016, Jessica had completed her case plan requirements but was not ready to resume custody of the children. She was also pregnant and living with a new boyfriend. At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court continued Jessica’s reunification services and granted her overnight visits. The court granted Daniel one, one-hour supervised visit a month.
The juvenile court continued Jessica’s reunification services until the 18-month review hearing, which it scheduled for April 2017. The agency recommended the court terminate her services because she did not visit the children regularly, make herself available to the agency or drug test. The agency also informed the court that Daniel did not contact the agency to arrange visitation.
In April 2017, at an uncontested 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Jessica’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered no visitation for Daniel, who was not present but was represented by counsel. Neither parent filed an extraordinary writ petition.
In July 2017, the juvenile court convened an uncontested section 366.26 hearing. Daniel was in an Oregon state prison. County counsel requested a continuance to properly notify the children’s fathers. The court granted the request and continued the hearing to October 19, 2017.
In its report for the continued section 366.26 hearing, the agency informed the juvenile court that the children’s foster mother wanted to adopt them. She had been Jessica’s foster mother so the children knew her as a grandma. They had also been in her care since October 2015 and were very attached to her. The agency recommended the court terminate parental rights and select adoption as the children’s permanent plan. On October 19, 2017, Daniel’s attorney requested a continuance so he could speak with Daniel. The court continued the hearing to October 31.
On October 31, 2017, the juvenile court was unable to contact Daniel by telephone. His attorney made an offer of proof that if called he would testify that he had a relationship with Hazel in that he met her in person once in July or August of 2016, visited with her via FaceTime and visited her once or twice with Jessica. He asked the court to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. He believed Hazel was bonded to him and knew him as her father. He also believed he deserved a chance to be her father. He asked the court to select a permanent plan of legal guardianship rather than adoption.
The juvenile court found the beneficial parent-child relationship did not apply and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
At a termination hearing, the juvenile court’s focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B).
Daniel’s trial counsel argued unsuccessfully the juvenile court should apply the beneficial parent-child exception to adoption pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). This exception applies if termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because the parent has “maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A parent asserting this exception must show he or she “occupies a parental role in the child’s life, resulting in a significant, positive, emotional attachment between child and parent.” (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.)
Daniel does not argue the juvenile court erred in not applying the parent-child exception to adoption. Nor does he argue the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights on any grounds. Rather, he essentially contends he was uninformed of a court hearing while he was incarcerated at Susanville (presumably the detention hearing) and unaware that he had appointed counsel and could visit Hazel. He also asserts that he provided for Hazel and would like to maintain a relationship with her through visitation and a permanent plan other than adoption. There are at least two essential problems with Daniel’s assertions. First, the record either explains or contradicts his claims. His whereabouts were unknown at the time of the detention hearing, preventing the agency from giving him notice of the hearing. Further, he knew he had an attorney because he communicated with her and he knew he could visit Hazel because, according to him, he did so several times. Secondly, Daniel fails to show how any of the claims he makes, even if true, resulted in the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights.
An appealed from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is appellant’s burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect. If appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) We conclude Daniel failed to make a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.