In re Ashton B
Filed 5/16/06 In re Ashton B. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
In re ASHTON B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187755 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK38776) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DIANE B., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Debra L. Losnick, Commissioner. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Ellen F. Obstler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Diane B., in propia persona, for Defendant and Appellant Diane B.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Diane B. (mother), the adoptive mother of Ashton B., appeals from the order terminating her parental rights under Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26. We affirm the order.
We appointed counsel to represent mother in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed a letter pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959, indicating an inability to find any arguable issues. On February 7, 2006, we advised mother that she had 30 days in which to submit any contentions or arguments she wished us to consider. On March 21, 2006, mother filed a letter in which she raised the following contentions in support of her position that the order terminating parental rights should be reversed: (1) the case should have been resolved in New Jersey rather than California; (2) the social workers lied and perjured themselves; (3) she complied with all requirements imposed by the juvenile court; (4) two of her older adoptive children were returned to her care and custody; (5) Ashton's legal guardian should not be permitted to make decisions concerning Ashton's religion simply because he is handicapped (i.e., has Down's syndrome and is mentally retarded); (6) mother underwent two psychiatric evaluations and Ashton's legal guardian had no psychiatric evaluation at all; (7) mother was not permitted to call certain witnesses at the hearing at which her parental rights were terminated; (8) mother was alienated from Ashton because she was denied adequate visitation with him; and (9) Ashton suffers from seizures because he is over-medicated and alienated from mother and his siblings. We have reviewed the record and conclude these contentions do not raise any arguable issues.
The order terminating parental rights is presumed to be correct. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) Reversal is required only if the parent raises claims of reversible error, which are supported by argument and authority on each point. (Ibid.) â€
