Filed 12/8/17 In re A.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN M. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

F075562

(Super. Ct. Nos. 517647, 517648)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge.
Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant STEVEN M.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.S.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellants Steven M. (father) and D.S. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders terminating their parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to their now three- and one-year-old sons, Adam and Stanley. After reviewing the juvenile court record, appellants’ court-appointed counsel informed this court they could find no arguable issues to raise on appellants’ behalf. This court granted appellants leave to personally file letters setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
Appellants filed a joint 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. (In re Phoenix H. (2009), 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In August 2016, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) responded to a report that mother gave birth at the hotel where she and father were living with then two-year-old Adam. Mother had not received any prenatal care and she and newborn Stanley tested positive for methamphetamine.
Mother has a history of child welfare intervention. At the time of Stanley’s birth, she had lost her parental rights to her two minor daughters; one in May 2010, and the other in December 2012.
The agency took Stanley and Adam into protective custody, placed them in foster care and filed a dependency petition on their behalf. The juvenile court ordered the children detained in August 2016, and the agency provided the parents referrals for individual counseling, parenting classes, and substance abuse assessments. In November 2016, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children, denied the parents reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing for March 30, 2017.
In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the agency informed the juvenile court father and mother only visited the children one time after the detention hearing in August. They attempted visitation but either had transportation problems or showed up too late to visit. Meanwhile, Adam and Stanley were doing well in foster care and their foster parents wanted to adopt them.
On March 30, 2017, mother made an offer of proof that she last visited the children on September 13, 2016, and tried on many occasions to visit but was unable. She loved her children very much, attended parenting classes and worked very hard to better herself. She believed it was in their best interest to be raised by family. She did not want her parental rights terminated. Father made a similar offer of proof.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights after finding the children were likely to be adopted and the parents failed to prove terminating their parental rights would be detrimental to the children.
After the parents filed their joint letter, they submitted a video exhibit to this court without a written explanation as to how this court should treat the exhibit. We construed it as a request to augment the record and deferred ruling on it pending our consideration of their appeals.
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 and mother do not argue that the juvenile court erred in terminating their parental rights. Instead, they argue that the children are bonded to them and would be emotionally harmed if parental rights were terminated. As evidence, they refer this court to the video exhibit, which they claim shows how happy the children were in their custody and how disappointed they were when taken into protective custody. They claim they tried to participate in visitation, parenting classes and the drug assessments, but the social workers kept changing the times.
We deny the parents’ request to augment the record with the video exhibit on the grounds it is not necessary to the determination of this appeal, was not presented to the juvenile court, and is not appropriate for augmentation.
We further conclude the parents failed to raise any arguable issues from the termination hearing that merit briefing, and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.