Filed 12/29/17 In re Ariana L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ARIANA L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
N.Z.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F075821
(Super. Ct. No. 15CEJ300212-1)

OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Leanne L. LeMon, Commissioner.
Michelle Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant N.Z. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to her now three-year-old daughter, Ariana L. After reviewing the juvenile court record, appellant’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 the early morning of August 25, 2015, mother was arrested on several felony counts, including child endangerment, after crashing her car into a tree while driving under the influence of alcohol with then 11-month-old Ariana in the car. Ariana, who was not properly restrained, was injured and taken to the hospital. Mother admitted drinking three glasses of vodka around 8:00 p.m., the night before and drinking alcohol every couple of weeks to pass the time. She also disclosed that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder but was not taking her prescribed medication. Mother identified George L. as Ariana’s father.
The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Ariana in December 2015, ordered the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) to provide mother and George reunification services and set the six-month review hearing for June 2016. The department placed Ariana with her paternal grandparents.
Mother was incarcerated from August 25, 2015, to March 8, 2016. While incarcerated, she was unable to participate in services because of her housing classification. After her release on March 8, 2016, her whereabouts were unknown for a time.
On June 16, 2016, the juvenile court found mother’s whereabouts were unknown and terminated her reunification services at the six-month review hearing. The court continued services for George and set the 12-month review hearing for October 20, 2016, which was continued to December 2016.
Mother was again incarcerated on August 11, 2016, and released on December 23, 2016. She appeared at the 12-month review hearing on December 29, 2016, at which the juvenile court terminated George’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Neither parent filed an extraordinary writ petition from the court’s setting order. However, mother filed a modification petition under section 388 (section 388 petition) on December 29, 2016, asking the juvenile court to reopen reunification services. She alleged she had been sober since August 2015 and was receiving mental health treatment through probation.
Mother filed a second section 388 petition on March 1, 2017, asking the juvenile court to reinstate reunification services. She alleged she was attending parenting and substance abuse classes and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and submitting to random drug testing. In a letter attached to her petition, mother informed the court she was willing to do everything required of her to reunify with Ariana. She included the negative results of three drug tests taken in February 2017 and a letter from Madera County Behavioral Health Services dated February 28, 2017, stating she was involved in parenting and substance abuse disorder classes and individual psychotherapy.
The juvenile court set a hearing on June 15, 2017, to address mother’s section 388 petitions.
In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the department informed the juvenile court that Ariana was adoptable and had developed a close bond with her paternal grandparents who wanted to adopt her. Ariana visited weekly with mother and mother engaged in play with her and interacted positively with her. However, Ariana did not have a parent-child relationship with mother and the department did not believe it would be detrimental to Ariana to terminate mother’s parental rights.
On June 15, 2017, the juvenile court conducted a contested hearing on mother’s section 388 petitions and the department’s recommendation to terminate parental rights. Mother testified she had been sober since August 15, 2015. She attended AA meetings every day, weekly parenting and substance abuse disorder classes and mental health counseling. She testified at length about how the classes assisted her in her recovery and in improving her parenting skills. She was able to employ some of the skills she learned during her visits with Ariana. She described how Ariana smiled and ran to greet her when she arrived for visitation. Ariana was affectionate to her sometimes, when she wanted to be.
Mother also testified she was diagnosed with schizophrenia while incarcerated because she was hearing voices and thought there were evil things in her home. She was treated in a state psychiatric hospital for three months and prescribed medication. She said her schizophrenia had resolved and she was symptom free.
The juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petitions, finding she failed to demonstrate there had been a change in circumstances or that reinstating reunification services served Ariana’s best interest. The court also terminated parental rights and selected adoption as Ariana’s permanent plan after finding Ariana was likely to be adopted and that the beneficial relationship exception to adoption did not apply.
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 does not argue the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights. Rather, she contends the juvenile court did not give her sufficient time to complete her reunification services in light of her inability to access them while incarcerated. She also informs this court that she has been sober for two years, attended AA meetings and drug tested voluntarily after her release from custody and attended every visit with Ariana. She asks this court to “address the fact that [she] didn’t get time to do [her] reunification services due to being in jail.”
Reunification services for a child under age three at the time of initial removal are limited to “a period of six months from the dispositional hearing …, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care ….” (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The juvenile court may terminate reunification services for such a child at the six-month review hearing under certain circumstances, including the unknown whereabouts of the parent. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3) & (5).) Mother questions the propriety of the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her reunification services but did not challenge the court’s order on direct appeal.
Section 395, subdivision (a)(1), provides in relevant part: “A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed as an order after judgment.” “A consequence of section 395 is that an unappealed disposition or postdisposition order is final and binding and may not be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable order.” (In re Jesse W. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 349, 355.) To the extent mother contends the juvenile court erred in not giving her more time to reunify, she forfeited that claim by failing to appeal from the court’s order terminating her reunification services at the six-month review hearing.
Additionally, because mother failed to raise any arguable issue on appeal from the order terminating her parental rights, we dismiss her appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.