In re Trinity N.
Filed 4/28/06 In re Trinity N. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re TRINITY N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | H029466 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JD16248) |
| SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRUONG N., Defendant and Appellant. |
Truong N. appeals from the juvenile court's judgment (jurisdictional order and dispositional order) concerning his daughter Trinity N. (born 2005). The juvenile court had declared Trinity a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). And it had removed Trinity from her mother's custody (Truong was in custody on domestic violence and child abuse charges alleging that the mother and Trinity were his victims) and ordered reunification services. Truong objects to the juvenile court's order that he (1) attend a year-long child abuser's treatment program, (2) attend weekly Gambler's Anonymous meetings, and (3) submit to weekly drug and alcohol testing for two months. His showing on appeal is deficient in several respects. We therefore affirm the judgment.
background
Truong was physically abusive to the mother and Trinity beginning about a month after Trinity was born. Staff from Greater Opportunities, who assisted the mother in caring for Trinity, witnessed some of the incidents, which were related to Truong's demands for money with which to gamble. Though Truong was ultimately arrested, Trinity's safety in the mother's care was not assured due to Trinity's severe developmental problems.
discussion
We agree with respondents'[1] threshold argument that Truong's brief is deficient in form and substance.
We acknowledge that Truong is representing himself on appeal. Under the law, one may act as his or her own attorney if he or she chooses. But when a litigant appears in propria persona, he or she is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure and evidence as an attorney--no different, no better, no worse. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639; Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160-161.)
A rule that applies to all litigants is that â€
