Filed 4/6/17 In re R.D. CA5


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
COURTNEY M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F074327
(Super. Ct. No. 15CEJ300145-3)

OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, Judge.
Darlene Azevedo Kelly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Courtney M. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to her now one-year-old daughter, R.D. After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother 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.).)
Mother 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
In May 2015, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) took then newborn R.D. and her two older siblings into protective custody after R.D. and mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Despite having received voluntary family maintenance services from 2012 to 2013, mother used methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy with R.D. The department placed the children in foster care.
The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children at a dispositional hearing in October 2015, and ordered the department to provide mother and Charles, R.D.’s father, reunification services. Mother’s services plan required her to participate in parenting classes, substance abuse and mental health services, if recommended, and random drug testing. The court ordered the department to provide her reasonable supervised visitation and gave it discretion to advance to liberal visitation with notice.
In April 2016, following a contested six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated mother and Charles’s reunification services for noncompliance and set a section 366.26 hearing for July 2016. Neither mother nor Charles challenged the court’s setting order by filing an extraordinary writ petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.450-8.452.)
In June 2016, mother filed a modification petition under section 388 asking the juvenile court to reinstate reunification services and increase visitation. She alleged in the petition that she was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings weekly and consistently visiting the children. The juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition without prejudice, following a hearing. By that time, the children had been placed together with their maternal aunt.
In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s parental rights to R.D. and order adoption with her maternal aunt and uncle as her permanent plan. The department also recommended the court approve legal guardianship with the maternal aunt and uncle as the permanent plan for R.D.’s older siblings.
In July 2016, the juvenile court convened the section 366.26 hearing and continued it as a contested hearing on the issue of terminating parental rights. Mother submitted on the department’s recommendation to establish a legal guardianship as to the older siblings.
The juvenile court conducted the contested section 366.26 hearing in September 2016. Mother testified R.D. demonstrated a “constant bond” during visits. She smiled, engaged in play and displayed affection by giving mother kisses and hugs. Mother fed R.D. and changed her diapers and clothing, played with her and read and sang to her. R.D. called her “Mama.”
Mother believed terminating her parental rights would harm R.D. because R.D.’s older siblings, who lived with R.D., were not being adopted. If mother was successful in reunifying with the siblings, the children would be separated and it would “tear everybody apart.” Mother also believed preserving their relationship would allow R.D. to know her family.
The social worker testified that adoption was the most appropriate permanent plan for R.D. because she was adoptable and living with care providers who wanted to adopt her and provide a permanent home for her siblings. The social worker did not believe that terminating mother’s parental rights would significantly harm R.D. because she was removed from mother’s care at the hospital and, subsequently, only visited with mother two hours a week. She did not believe that R.D. considered mother her parent.
Mother’s attorney asked the juvenile court to find that the beneficial relationship exception to adoption applied. Counsel argued that mother filled a parental role in R.D.’s life during visitation by playing with R.D., reading to her, feeding her and changing her diapers. In addition, R.D. appeared to view mother as her parent by the way she listened to her, engaged with her and reciprocated affection.
The juvenile court found that R.D. was likely to be adopted. The court found that mother regularly visited R.D. but failed to show that she occupied a parental role in R.D.’s life. Consequently, the court found that the beneficial relationship exception to adoption did not apply and terminated mother and Charles’s parental rights.
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).
Mother’s attorney attempted to establish that termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to R.D. She did so by invoking the beneficial relationship exception to adoption, which states, “The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The juvenile court, however, was not persuaded and declined to apply the exception.
Mother does not argue in her letter that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights. Instead, she worries the family will be devastated if R.D.’s siblings return to her custody and R.D. remains behind in an adoptive family. She, therefore, asks this court to reconsider the termination of her parental rights or dismiss the case and return R.D. to her custody. Mother also discusses issues in her letter that are long final such as the evidence of her methamphetamine use and the reasonableness of her reunification services. We conclude mother failed to identify any arguable issues from the termination hearing that merit briefing and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.