Filed 5/11/18 In re H.H. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


In re H.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.H.,
Defendant and Appellant. A152644

(San Francisco City & County
Super. Ct. No. JD17-3148)



M.H. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s order after a contested jurisdiction hearing finding there was substantial danger to the physical health and well-being of her daughter, 12-year-old H.H., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). The court removed H.H. from Mother’s care, ordered reunification services for Mother, and therapeutic visits with Mother if H.H. desired them.
Appointed counsel filed a “No Issues Statement” pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952. Counsel advised Mother that she could file a letter addressing any errors she believed were made by the juvenile court. Mother filed two hand-written letters arguing (1) she was denied the opportunity to present witnesses at the disposition hearing and (2) information about the referrals involving her older children should be stricken from the jurisdiction and disposition report. She contests that she has a history of relationships involving domestic violence and argues at length that her adult daughter is conspiring to keep H.H. from her. The letters attempt to document her love and devotion to her daughter, but fail to present any reasoned argument for a claim of reversible error.
To challenge a judgment the appellant “must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘present argument and authority on each point made.’ [Citations.]” (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) “Counsel cannot create a basis for challenging the judgment where none exists, and neither can the parent.” (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 845.) Mother does not provide appropriate citations to the record or legal authority. Mother fails to make any legal arguments demonstrating how the issues raised in her letters rise to the level of reversible error.
Although we are not required to, we have also conducted an independent review of the record as it relates to the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, and we have found no arguable issues for briefing. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.




 





_________________________
SMITH, J.*



We concur:


_________________________
STREETER, Acting P. J.


_________________________
REARDON, J.




















* Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

A152644, In re H.H.