In re Jonathan J.
Filed 10/10/06 In re Jonathan J. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| In re JONATHAN J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B191426 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK34471) |
| LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMBER P., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed.
Amber P., in pro. per.; and Lisa A. DiGrazia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_____________________
Amber P., the mother of two-year-old Jonathan J. and three-month-old Dustin H., appeals from the juvenile court’s May 24, 2006 order following a contested disposition hearing declaring Jonathan and Dustin dependent children of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and denying family reunification services to Amber under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (b)(11) and (b)(13).[1] The juvenile court had previously sustained the dependency petition alleging that at birth Dustin had a positive toxicology screen for amphetamine and methamphetamine and Amber had a positive toxicology screen for amphetamine, methamphetamine and opiates and that Amber has a history of substance abuse and is an abuser of amphetamine, methamphetamine and opiates who has failed in her prior attempts to complete court-ordered substance abuse rehabilitation programs.
In support of its denial of reunification services, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence the court had previously ordered termination of reunification services and parental rights for a sibling of Jonathan’s and Dustin’s (Anthony H.) and Amber had not subsequently made reasonable efforts to correct the problems that led to the removal of that child. In addition, the court found by clear and convincing evidence Amber has a history of extensive abuse and chronic use of drugs and has resisted prior court ordered treatment for this problem during the three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition concerning Jonathan and Dustin (including programs she left after the current petition had been filed).
We appointed counsel to represent Amber on appeal.
After examining the record and communicating with her client, counsel advised this court in writing pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 that there are no arguable issues. We notified Amber on August 28, 2006 that she had 30 days within which personally to submit any contentions she wished us to consider and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this appeal as abandoned.
On September 21, 2006 Amber filed a handwritten letter brief in which she requests that we reconsider the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services. Although Amber insists she was sober during her entire pregnancy with Jonathan, as well as the first 18 months of his life, she acknowledges she relapsed in the week prior to Dustin’s birth and does not challenge the juvenile court’s factual findings regarding either her history of extensive abuse and chronic use of drugs or her repeated failed efforts at treatment. In sum, Amber’s letter brief does not identify any legally cognizable error in the juvenile court’s order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994 [appellant must raise claims of reversible error or other defect in the appealed-from judgment or order and must present argument and authority on each point made; if he or she does not do so, the court in its discretion may deem the appeal abandoned and order its dismissal].)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
PERLUSS, P. J.
We concur:
WOODS, J.
ZELON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
[1] The juvenile court also denied family reunification services to Jonathan’s alleged father, but ordered that reunification services be provided to Dustin’s father. Neither father is a party to this appeal.
