In re E.R. III
Filed 3/19/07 In re E.R. III 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 E.R. III, et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARBARA R., Defendant and Appellant. | F051282 (Super. Ct. Nos. BJP014882 & BJP014883) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. Bender, Judge.
Kathleen M. Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In 2005, this court reversed juvenile court orders terminating appellants rights to her sons after respondent Madera County Department of Social Services/Child Welfare Services (the department) failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (42 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.; ICWA). Notably, we concluded there were no other grounds for reversal. Our disposition consequently was a limited reversal, directing the juvenile court to assure that the department made the necessary inquiry and gave the requisite notice under ICWA. We added that if appellants sons were ineligible for Indian tribal membership, the court should reinstate its orders terminating parental rights.
On remand, as the juvenile court sought to comply with our decision, appellant filed a petition for modification (Welf. & Inst. Code, 388) claiming she had completed her previously-ordered case plan so that the children should be placed in her care. The court set the petition for hearing along with a further hearing to assess the departments ICWA compliance.
The juvenile court subsequently found the department had complied and that the children were ineligible for the protections outlined in ICWA. At a later hearing, the court found appellant failed to show a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant the relief she sought and that it was not in the childrens best interest. Having denied appellants petition for modification, the court reinstated its orders terminating parental rights.
Appellant now appeals from the reinstatement of the termination orders. Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated January 23, 2007, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order dated January 30, 2007, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.
Appellant has filed such a letter brief with this court. In it, she complains that she deserves the chance to be the childrens mother and accuses the department of essentially kidnapping her sons. Having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude appellant has failed to show that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Our remand to the juvenile court was a limited one. (See In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695.) The childrens dependency was not reopened for all purposes, as appellants trial counsel seemed to believe. Nonetheless, the juvenile court exercised its discretion to hear evidence on appellants petition for modification and thereafter found it wanting. Her complaints now about issues, largely predating our prior reversal, do not establish that the court erred by reinstating its orders terminating parental rights. Indeed, appellant was arguably not entitled to any relief in the trial court except as it might relate to ICWA.
There being no claim that the juvenile court did not follow our directions in our prior opinion and no showing that the juvenile court abused its discretion, we conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the courts decision. Having found no claim of trial court error in appellants letter as to matters within the scope of this appeal, we conclude appellant has abandoned the appeal from the order terminating her parental rights and will dismiss this appeal. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
*Before Harris, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Kane, J.
