In re J.R.
Filed 3/5/07 In re J.R. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENS SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.R. et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E041599 (Super.Ct.No. J195604) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge. Affirmed.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.R.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant K.P.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minor.
K.P. (mother) and M.R. (father), the parents of J.R. (child) who is presently six years old, appeal from an order of the dependency court terminating their parental rights. After a review of the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 15, 2004, when the child was nearly four years old, the Department of Childrens Services (DCS) filed a petition on behalf of the child alleging that she came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d).[1] The petition alleged sexual abuse by the childs then 14-year-old brother, J.M., and 12-year-old brother, R.M., that the parents knew or should have known of the abuse, and failure to supervise and protect the child.[2]
The child told a social worker that her two older brothers had sexually penetrated her with a pen and that she told her mother who got mad. She also described seeing the oldest brother engage in an apparent act of masturbation in her presence. Mother denied that any sexual abuse could have occurred, as she has consistently done throughout the dependency. The paternal grandmother told her son, who reported to mother, that the child had told her that the child had orally copulated the two older brothers. The child was detained with the paternal grandmother who had already been providing frequent care for the child.
The contested jurisdiction hearing began on January 5, 2005, on amended petitions filed October 20, 2004. The court sustained the petitions and found the failure to protect allegations true.
A contested dispositional hearing was held on February 9, 2005. The child and her siblings were declared dependents of the court. Reunification services were ordered for the parents. The child was placed with the paternal grandmother.
Mother and father appealed from the disposition, and we affirmed the judgment. (In re J.R. (Nov. 18, 2005, E037708) [nonpub. opn.].)
Six- and 12-month review hearings were held. At the 12-month review hearing held on March 24, 2006, the court terminated reunification services and set the case for a selection and implementation hearing. ( 366.26.) Mother and father were advised of their right to seek writ review of the courts orders and findings. Mother did not, but father did seek a writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452(a).) We denied the writ in an unpublished opinion. (Michael R. v. Superior Court (July 6, 2006, E040146).)
A contested selection and implementation hearing was held on September 26, 2006. Mother and father testified regarding their relationship with the child. Father testified that he had not visited the child in over six months, due to his work schedule he claimed. Mothers visitation with the child had been terminated on July 24, as being detrimental to the child. The child had told the visitation monitor that she did not enjoy the visits, except to see her youngest brother, and she requested that she not be required to visit with her mother.
The assessment report indicated that the child was very intelligent and healthy. She had been living for two years with the paternal grandmother who wanted to adopt her.
The court found that the child was adoptable and that adoption was the appropriate plan. No exception to adoption existed, and the court terminated the parental rights of mother and father.
DISCUSSION
Mother and father have appealed, and at their request we appointed counsel to represent them on appeal. Counsel for mother and father have both filed briefs under authority of Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Andersv. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 setting forth a statement of the case, a statement of facts and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. To guide our review, counsel collectively ask us to review whether the child was adoptable by clear and convincing evidence and whether the beneficial parental relationship exception ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) should have barred termination of rights.
We provided mother and father with an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. Mother has filed one, which we have read and considered, but father has not.
Mothers personal brief is a hodgepodge of documents. Most concern a police report dated June 13, 2003, when the child was two years old. Mother reported that she was separated pending divorce from her husband. Mother stated then that the child pulled her panties aside and touched herself while stating, Thats what daddy does to me. The report was determined to be unfounded Nothing came of it, and the incident was not alleged against father in the dependency petition that was sustained. The report is irrelevant to any issues on appeal as is the allegation that father has physically struck the child in the past and was not prosecuted for it. (Evid. Code, 350.) The petition did not allege that father physically abused the child.
Mother also includes an excerpt from the jurisdictional/dispositional report that related a prior investigation on June 26, 2003, in which mother and the oldest brother stated that the child climbed into the brothers lap, pulled down his pants and touched the boys penis while stating, This is what my daddy does. Mother called the police, but the report was later determined to be unfounded. This allegedly occurred about 10 days after the previous report mother made to the police while separated from father. Later, mother and father reunited.
Mother has notes in the margin indicating that the report of the incident is false and a fraud. Any issue regarding this was appealable from the dispositional order. It is not appealable from the present termination order. (In re Daniel K. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 661, 666-667.) In any event, we do not reweigh credibility on appeal. Credibility issues are left to the trial court, and all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party. We are without power to substitute our inferences for those drawn by the trial court. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 419-420.)
Mother includes a handwritten letter indicating that DCS lied in the reports and that people were out to get her. It contains information falling outside the record and irrelevant information. Therefore, the factual contents cannot be considered and would not raise any arguable issues in any event.
Finally, mother includes a letter sent to mother from someone named Maudie Mollinda that is undated. Mother also has included an undated laboratory sheet showing an apparent request for a sexually transmitted disease screening of Mollinda. Mothers letter indicates that father had lived with Mollinda at one time, and the letter from her to mother indicates that father was then living with her and caring for Mollindas mother. We are utterly at a loss as to what these have to do with this case. The information is irrelevant (Evid. Code, 350), and is not part of the record on appeal. We cannot consider it, and it certainly raises no arguable issues in any event.
DISPOSTION
We have now completed our independent review of the entire record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ Richli
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
[1]All further statutory references are to this code.
[2]The child has another half brother, B.K., the youngest of the three brothers. The three boys have different fathers than the child. After the filing of the petition on behalf of the child, a petition was filed on behalf of the three boys that resulted in an in-home dependency. They are not parties to this appeal.
