Filed 2/15/22 In re Samantha H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge.

Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant Scott W. (father) appealed from the juvenile court’s August 18, 2021, order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)[1] to his now

eight-year-old daughter, Samantha H. 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

Samantha has been the subject of multiple dependencies over the years. In June 2013, she was removed as a newborn from her mother because her mother threatened to harm her. Samantha was placed with father at the detention hearing. In July 2013, the juvenile court terminated its dependency jurisdiction and awarded father sole physical and legal custody of Samantha. In November 2014, Samantha was removed from father’s care after he physically abused her half sibling. The court ordered father to participate in reunification services and after six months placed Samantha with him under a plan of family maintenance. In February 2016, the court terminated its dependency jurisdiction and granted father sole custody.

The instant case was initiated in February 2019 after father was arrested for physically assaulting a child in Samantha’s presence. Samantha was taken into protective custody by the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) and father was charged with child endangerment. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a).)

The agency filed a dependency petition alleging under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support) that Samantha was in need of juvenile court protection. The juvenile court ordered Samantha detained pursuant to the petition.

In March 2019, the agency filed a first amended petition after Samantha disclosed being sexually abused by a family member in her grandparents’ home. She told father about the sexual abuse but he continued to allow her to go to the grandparents’ home while the perpetrator was there. The amended petition added an allegation under section 300, subdivision (d) (sexual abuse) that father knew or reasonably should have known that he was subjecting Samantha to sexual abuse.

Father appeared in custody and Samantha’s mother appeared telephonically at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing in March 2019. Father submitted the matter to the juvenile court. The court sustained the petition and adjudged Samantha a dependent under section 300, subdivisions (b), (d) and (g). The court ordered the parents to participate in reunification services. Father was ordered to complete a parenting class and a mental health assessment and any recommended treatment. The court set the

six-month review hearing for September 16, 2019.

On September 16, 2019, the juvenile court set a contested six-month review hearing on October 9 at father’s request to rule on his request for family maintenance services. The juvenile court terminated family reunification services for Samantha’s mother at the contested review hearing, continued family reunification services for father and set a 12-month review hearing for March 18, 2020.

By the 12-month review hearing, father had completed his family reunification services and was having overnight visits with Samantha. The juvenile court returned Samantha to his custody under family maintenance at the 12-month review hearing on March 18, 2020, and set the family maintenance review hearing for September 10, 2020.

In August 2020, the agency conducted a welfare check on Samantha and her then 11-year-old half sister, Alyssa W. They were living with father in a motel room. Alyssa disclosed that father molested her approximately a week before. Father was arrested. He denied sexually molesting Alyssa.

In September 2020, the agency filed a subsequent petition (§ 342) alleging Samantha was left without support because father was arrested and the whereabouts of her mother were unknown. (§ 300, subd. (g).) It also alleged Alyssa had been sexually abused, placing Samantha at a similar risk of sexual abuse. (§ 300, subd. (j) (abuse of sibling).) The agency also filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) alleging family maintenance services had proven ineffective in protecting her. Samantha was placed in foster care.

On September 8, 2020, the juvenile court conducted a detention hearing on the subsequent and supplemental petitions. Father appeared at the hearing in custody. The juvenile court ordered Alyssa and Samantha detained, vacated the family maintenance review hearing set for September 10 and set a jurisdictional/dispositional hearing (combined hearing) on the petitions for September 29.

On September 14, 2020, Samantha disclosed that father sexually abused her. However, during a forensic interview, she recanted her allegation and stated it was her uncle, not her father, who sexually molested her. Her uncle had already been prosecuted for the abuse. The referral was closed as inconclusive in October 2020 and all further charges against father for sexually abusing Alyssa were dropped.

The juvenile court continued the combined hearing and set it as a contested hearing on October 29, 2020. Counsel for father and the minors withdrew their requests for a contested hearing. The court sustained the petitions, ordered the girls removed from father’s custody and ordered father to participate in parenting classes, sexual abuse therapy and weekly supervised visitation. The court set a 24-month review hearing for February 8, 2021. It was continued until February 22.

Meanwhile, father refused to complete his court-ordered services, claiming he had not done anything wrong. On February 22, 2021, at the 24-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated father’s reunification services, ordered Alyssa to remain in foster care and set a section 366.26 hearing as to Samantha for June 14, 2021. Father did not file a writ petition.

Father continued to visit Samantha with supervision. Her foster parents were interested in adopting her. Samantha vacillated between wanting to be adopted and wanting to live with Alyssa at her grandparents’ home. The section 366.26 hearing was continued and set as a contested hearing on August 18, 2021.

On August 17, 2021, father filed a modification petition (§ 388) seeking placement of Samantha or additional family reunification services. He said he completed a parenting class and it was in Samantha’s best interest to be placed with him because he could provide her a safe and loving home.

Father appeared at the contested section 366.26 hearing on August 18, 2021. The parties stipulated that all testimony and evidence could be considered for both the section 388 and 366.26 hearings. The parties stipulated that Samantha was adoptable.

Father testified he completed a 16-week parenting course in August 2021 and a mental health assessment. He did not meet the criteria for mental health services. He learned in the parenting class that there are different types of abuse and that children learn from their parents what is right and wrong. They also discussed sexual abuse in the class. He was not aware that Samantha had been sexually abused but said she could have been sexually abused by her uncle. Alyssa was sexually abused by her uncle and physically abused by father. He hit her but Samantha was not present. He emotionally abused Samantha by yelling at her. In the future, he would try to discuss problems with her and work through them. He would also get counseling. He objected to having his parental rights terminated because Samantha needed to be with her family. He and Samantha have a close relationship and he never missed any of their visits. She told him she loved him every time she saw him.

Following argument, the juvenile court denied father’s section 388 petition, finding father failed to prove there had been a change of circumstances and that returning Samantha to his custody with family maintenance services or providing him additional family reunification services served her best interest. As to termination of parental rights, the court accepted the stipulation that Samantha was likely to be adopted and made that finding. The court also found that the beneficial parent-child exception to adoption applied because father maintained regular visitation and contact with Samantha and had a parent-child relationship with her. However, the court also found that the benefit to Samantha of adoption outweighed any detriment she would experience by the termination of parental rights. The court terminated parental rights.

DISCUSSION

An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant’s burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If the 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, the court is required to 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 the juvenile court erred in finding Samantha was likely to be adopted or that the court should have found an exception to adoption applied. Rather, he expresses his beliefs that he can provide Samantha the love and healthy environment she needs and Samantha would be happier in his care.

Since father does not challenge the juvenile court’s findings at the termination hearing, we conclude he failed to set forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error arose from the court’s order terminating his parental rights. Further, though we are not required to do so, we have reviewed the record as it relates to the termination hearing and have found no arguable issues for briefing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–842.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.