Filed 1/16/18 In re T.M. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT*

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Louie L. Vega, Judge.

Mara L. Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

R.M. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366.36[1] and 388 hearing, conducted on February 28, 2017. At that hearing, the court denied mother’s section 388 petitions, in which she requested that her children, then seven-year-old Isaiah, six-year-old David and four-year-old Tatiana (the children), be returned to her custody with family maintenance services. The court also entered findings and orders pursuant to section 366.26, terminating mother’s parental rights and freeing the children for adoption.

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 submitted a letter in which she generally expresses her dissatisfaction with her representation by trial counsel and the social services department’s choice of placement for the children. She asks this court to give her case “one more look.”

We conclude mother failed to 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

Dependency proceedings were initiated in September 2013 when the Kern County Department of Social Services (department) took the children, along with their older half-siblings, into protective custody because of domestic violence and no parental supervision. At the dispositional hearing in January 2014, the juvenile court placed the children in mother’s custody with family maintenance services and ordered her to participate in parenting, neglect and domestic violence counseling. However, the department removed the children from mother in June 2014, following another domestic violence incident. In August 2014, the juvenile court ordered mother to participate in reunification services, including mental health counseling and random drug testing.

In December 2015, at an uncontested 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services. By that time, she had completed parenting, neglect and domestic violence counseling. However, she was not participating in mental health counseling and she tested positive for methamphetamine twice in September 2015 and failed to test in October and December, resulting in presumptive positive test results. The juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing for April 2016.

The juvenile court continued the section 366.26 hearing multiple times and ultimately conducted it on February 28, 2017. Meanwhile, mother filed modification petitions under section 388, requesting the juvenile court return the children to her custody with family maintenance services. As changed circumstances, mother alleged that she completed substance abuse counseling, along with other aspects of her services plan, maintained employment, obtained suitable housing and was ready for the children to return home. She further alleged the children were strongly bonded to her and that returning them to her custody served their best interest. The court set a hearing on mother’s section 388 petitions and combined them with the section 366.26 hearing. In reports for the combined hearing, the department informed the juvenile court the children were placed with foster parents who wanted to adopt them and recommended the court deny mother’s section 388 petitions and terminate her parental rights. Mother appeared with her attorney on February 28, 2017, at the combined hearing. Her attorney made an offer of proof accepted by the parties that mother tested positive for cannabinoids on February 24 and had a medical marijuana card. In addition, she regularly saw a mental health professional who prescribed medication for her. Her attorney argued that her regular participation in mental health treatment satisfied the mental health component of her reunification plan and that her recent drug test indicated her willingness to participate in drug testing on an ongoing basis. The court found that mother’s circumstances had not significantly changed and denied her section 388 petitions. Over the objection of mother’s attorney, the juvenile court terminated mother’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 an appellant’s burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If the appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

The only potentially arguable issues in this case are those arising from the juvenile court’s findings and orders issued at the February 2017 combined hearing. That is because all prior rulings are now final.

At the February 2017 combined hearing, the juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petitions and terminated her parental rights. At trial, mother had the burden of proving under section 388 that her circumstances had changed such that an order for family maintenance services served the children’s best interest. To prevail on appeal, she would have to show the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her petitions. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317-318.) Mother also had the burden of showing that adoption, the preferred permanent placement option, would be detrimental to the children because one of the exceptions to adoption applied. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) On appeal, she would have to show that the evidence supporting one of the exceptions compelled a finding of detriment as a matter of law. In addition, she would have to show that the juvenile court’s conclusion the benefit of adoption to her children outweighed the benefit to them of preserving her parental rights was an abuse of discretion. (In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646-647.)

As we stated above, mother asserts her dissatisfaction of the proceedings on a variety of topics but she does not claim the juvenile court’s findings and orders issued at the combined hearing were error. Consequently, she failed to identify any arguable issues that merit briefing. Further, this court is not required to review the appellate record for possible error. Thus, we dismiss the appeal. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.).

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.