Filed 6/23/17 In re Joselyn C. CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.E. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

F074824

(Super. Ct. No. JJV069368)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County.
Robert Anthony Fultz, Judge.
No appearance for Defendant and Appellant A.E.
Linda J. Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jose C.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

Jose C. (father) appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to his now 21-month-old daughter, Joselyn. After reviewing the juvenile court record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father 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.).)
Father filed a letter but failed to address the termination findings or orders or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the section 366.26 hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
One-month-old Joselyn was taken into protective custody in November 2015 by the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) after A.E. (mother) sought medical treatment for herself and then one-month-old Joselyn at an emergency room. Joselyn was medically cleared but mother was involuntarily committed because she was extremely paranoid and delusional, thinking people were coming to kill her. She admitted using methamphetamine.
Father met mother two years before, took her into his home and helped her get clean. She took care of the home for a while but began to use methamphetamine again and became violent and delusional as a result. She was arrested and incarcerated. Father signed Joselyn’s birth certificate and financially supported her. He knew mother used drugs and disapproved but made no attempt to obtain custody of Joselyn. Father told the investigating social worker he wanted custody of Joselyn but needed time to prepare. He was living with his cousin and her children but refused to provide the address.
The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Joselyn and ordered reunification services for mother. The court denied father reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) (whereabouts unknown) because he avoided all contact with the agency, a diligent search failed to locate him and he did not attend the court hearings. The agency placed Joselyn with her maternal grandmother in March 2016.
Mother did not comply with her court-ordered services. She was not taking her psychotropic medication, did not complete parenting education or substance abuse treatment and failed to drug test. In April 2016, she was arrested on various charges, including child stealing, trespassing and possession and being under the influence of a controlled substance. She did not visit Joselyn regularly and when she visited she appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. In May, she was named in a criminal restraining order preventing her from having contact with Joselyn. The restraining order was modified in August, allowing mother contact with Joselyn.
In June 2016, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services at an uncontested six-month review hearing and set a section 366.26 hearing for September 2016. Mother did not file an extraordinary writ petition from the court’s setting order.
In July 2016, the department moved Joselyn to a foster home after her maternal grandmother violated the restraining order by allowing mother to have contact with Joselyn. Father contacted the agency, wanting to know why Joselyn was removed from her grandmother. He explained that the grandmother contacted him when Joselyn was taken into protective custody and he helped support Joselyn, even providing the maternal grandmother financial assistance to gain custody of Joselyn. When asked why he did not attend the hearings, he said he was undocumented and afraid of being deported. The agency filed a motion, asking the juvenile court to appoint counsel for him.
Father made his first appearance at the hearing in August 2016 on the agency’s motion and requested placement and visitation. The juvenile court appointed him counsel, ordered weekly supervised visitation and directed him to file a modification petition under section 388 if he wanted reunification services.
The parents’ attorneys filed section 388 petitions on their behalf prior to the section 366.26 hearing. In his petition, father asked the juvenile court to provide him family maintenance services. Mother asked the court to reinstate reunification services because she loved Joselyn and was motivated to provide her a safe and healthy home. Mother alleged she voluntarily entered a residential drug treatment facility, enrolled in a parenting class, which she expected to complete in November 2016, and had tested negative for drugs since July 30, 2016, through a random drug testing program.
The juvenile court scheduled hearings on the parents’ section 388 petitions to be heard in conjunction with the section 366.26 hearing, which it continued (combined hearing). The agency opposed the parents’ section 388 petitions and recommended the juvenile court terminate parental rights and free Joselyn for adoption.
In November 2016, the juvenile court convened the combined hearing and first took up the matter of the parents’ section 388 petitions. Father testified about the specific ways in which he supported Joselyn and maintained contact with her. He had contact with Joselyn every two to three days while she was in mother’s care and visited her twice a month at the maternal grandmother’s home until she was removed from her in July. He did not pursue custody of Joselyn because he did not have an address for service of process and the maternal grandmother told him not to interfere because she was going to get custody of her. Father denied allegations in the agency’s report that he engaged in domestic violence and smoked marijuana twice weekly. He also denied having a medical marijuana card, claiming it expired “a long time ago” and having 99 marijuana plants. Instead, he had one marijuana plant but would never smoke marijuana because of Joselyn.
The juvenile court denied father’s section 388 petition, finding there was no evidence his circumstances had changed or that reopening reunification would be in Joselyn’s best interest. The court also denied mother’s section 388 petition following her testimony and proceeded to the section 366.26 phase of the hearing. After the parties submitted the matter on the agency’s report, the court found by clear and convincing evidence Joselyn was likely to be adopted, that none of the exceptions to adoption applied and terminated parental rights. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
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 and present argument and authority on each point made. If appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
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).
Father does not argue in his letter that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights. Instead, he denies as false any reports of family violence, claiming mother attempted to cast him in a negative light. He explains why he did not more aggressively pursue custody of Joselyn but states that he is established and has a home for her. He opposes her adoption and insinuates that one of the social workers, who he identifies by name, told him his daughter was “very pretty” and would be “sold quickly.” He is not sure if it was a “bad interpretation” (he is Spanish speaking) or “lying.” He regrets remaining silent and asks this court to reconsider this case.
Though not required, we reviewed the relevant portions of the appellate record and found no evidence of the impropriety father describes. Nor did we find any arguable issues from the termination hearing that merit briefing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.