Filed 6/27/22 In re Luis L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge.

Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant, A.Z. (mother), mother of now 13-year-old Luis L., Jr., appealed from the juvenile court’s February 3, 2022, order terminating her parental rights. 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 asking for reinstatement of visitation. She does not allege the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights.

We conclude mother failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Nine-year-old Luis was removed from mother’s custody in October 2018 along with his five-year-old sister H.L. and two-year-old sister J.M. by the Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) because of mother’s ongoing methamphetamine use and failure to adequately supervise and care for the children. The children were placed in foster care.

Mother received 12 months of reunification services and consistently visited the children but continued to use methamphetamine. At the 12-month review hearing in December 2019, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 hearing. The court ordered continued weekly supervised visits for mother with the children. By that time, the children were living in separate foster homes because of their disruptive behavior. Luis, who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, was in his seventh placement.

Mother continued in-person visits with the children, who were excited to see her and each other. She played ball with them, brought them food, and was openly loving and affectionate with them. During a visit on March 11, 2020, Luis asked mother to play kick ball with him. She played with him briefly until his sister asked her to take her to the bathroom. Luis screamed for mother to return and started kicking and knocking over objects around him. He continued misbehaving when she returned. Mother tried several ways to reengage Luis without success. He left the visit without speaking to her. On March 23, 2020, mother had to transition to video chat visits because of the COVID-19 virus.

In March 2020, the court appointed special advocate reported that Luis did not understand why he was in foster care and wanted to return to mother. However, he was doing well in his placement.

In April 2020, following a contested section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found Luis was not likely to be adopted and ordered him to remain in foster care with a goal of legal guardianship. The court ordered a plan of legal guardianship and termination of dependency jurisdiction for H.L. and a permanent plan of adoption and termination of parental rights for J.M. The court ordered continued weekly supervised visitation.

At periodic review hearings over the ensuing year, the juvenile court found continued foster care was the appropriate permanent plan for Luis. During that time, visitation with mother waned and then ceased. In July 2020, Luis told the social worker he did not want to visit mother because she paid attention to her boyfriend and Luis did not know how to get her attention. Over the next several months, the social worker encouraged him to reconsider but he persisted in his refusal even when in-person visits were available in August 2020. In November 2020, Luis agreed to a video chat visit with mother and it went well. She paid attention to him and he stated he wanted more visits, including in-person visits. They had another positive in-person visit the following month. However, Luis stopped asking for in-person and/or video chat visits after mother introduced him to her boyfriend during a video chat visit in February 2021.

In September 2021, the agency asked the juvenile court to set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for Luis. He was placed in a foster home with J.M. and wanted to be adopted by his foster parents. Although the agency continued to encourage Luis to visit mother, he would only visit her briefly with his foster parent present. The foster parents supported an ongoing relationship with mother as long as Luis wanted one.

On February 3, 2022, the parties stipulated at the section 366.26 hearing that Luis was adoptable. Mother’s attorney did not offer any evidence but wanted her attorney to address the juvenile court for her. She acknowledged that Luis wanted to be adopted but opposed it. Luis lived with her the majority of his life and she believed they had a strong bond. She took good care of Luis when she had him and loved him. She wanted to preserve her parental rights. She wanted to have contact with Luis after the adoption. Even though Luis did not want visits, mother did and would have continued to visit if allowed. She believed he should have the option of living with her at some point.

The juvenile court found terminating mother’s parental rights would not be detrimental to Luis. The court addressed visitation, stating

“Something has occurred in the process wherein Luis does not want to have contact with his mother. And as a result of that it looks like their relationship, at least in the last four months has deteriorated …. [P]rior to that, when there were in-person visitations, that both Luis and his sister enjoyed and participated in those visits and mom was appropriate during those visits. ¶ …¶ The fact that he does not wish to have contact with his biological mother … certainly would be suggestive that if the Court decided to not proceed today with the termination of parental rights that Luis could be sitting in a foster care placement for a great deal of time, and maybe until he’s 18, without the benefit of stability because he certainly has made it very clear that he does not wish to have not only no visits, but no FaceTime or Zoom contact either. And, so, I believe that it is going to be in this minor’s best interest to proceed with adoption.”

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 the 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.)

By the time a dependency case reaches a section 366.26 hearing, there are few options available to the juvenile court. Efforts to reunify the parent and child have ceased and the court’s focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted. (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.

Mother does not contend the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights. Instead, she wants visitation with Luis to resume. However, there is nothing that prevents that but Luis himself. There is a visitation order in place and the prospective adoptive parents are willing to maintain mother’s contact with Luis. Luis simply does not want to visit, at least as of the section 366.26 hearing. As visitation is a matter that must be resolved in the juvenile court in this case, this court does not have the authority to grant mother the relief she seeks.

We conclude mother has not raised any arguable issues stemming from the section 366.26 hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841-842.) Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

[1] All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.