Opinion
A152283
06-20-2018
In re J.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.E., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1501166)
R.E. (Father) appeals an order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights to his son, J.E. Father's appellate counsel filed a no issues statement in accordance with In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 and In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded there were no arguable issues to raise on appeal. We afforded Father the opportunity to file a letter stating issues he believed should be reviewed on appeal. Father has filed a letter with this court contending that he had participated in court-ordered services, setting forth reasons for his failure to complete a domestic violence class, and contending the social worker favored J.E.'s mother (Mother) over him.
The Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (the Bureau) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on behalf of then three-month-old J.E. in November 2015. The petition alleged Mother used cocaine and marijuana during her pregnancy; that Mother and J.E. tested positive for cocaine when J.E. was born; that Mother was still using marijuana, methamphetamines, and cocaine; that Father had failed to protect J.E. from Mother's substance abuse; that Mother had not addressed her mental health problems; and that Father and Mother had engaged in acts of domestic violence, one of which had recently led to Father's arrest. With some amendments, the juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and took jurisdiction over J.E. J.E. was initially placed with Father, along with his three older siblings, and later placed with both parents.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
A supplemental petition was filed in March 2016, alleging J.E. continued to be at risk, due to an incident in which narcotics were found in the family's home and Father admitted to having used crack cocaine. The juvenile court sustained the petition, removed J.E. and his siblings, and ordered reunification services. J.E. was placed in a foster home separate from his siblings. Reunification efforts were unsuccessful, and on February 21, 2017, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the case for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. Mother and Father were not present at the February 21, 2017 hearing, but they were represented by counsel. The court clerk mailed Father and Mother notice that the section 366.26 hearing had been set, which included an admonition that if they wished to preserve their right to appellate review of the order setting the hearing, they must file a petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.590.) Neither parent filed such a petition.
Before the June 28, 2017 section 366.26 hearing, the Bureau reported that J.E. continued to live in a separate foster home from his siblings. Neither Father nor Mother had been in contact with J.E. since December 2016.
At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found there was insufficient evidence to support either the beneficial relationship or the sibling relationship exception to the statutory preference for termination of parental rights at such a hearing. (§ 366.26, subds. (b)(1), (c)(1)(B)(i) & (v).) The court terminated Mother and Father's parental rights.
The juvenile court's decision is presumed correct unless appellant can establish that the trial court has committed prejudicial error. "An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In doing so, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and 'present argument and authority on each point made' [citations]. If he does not, he may, in the court's discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that event, it may order dismissal." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
We have reviewed Father's letter brief, and we conclude he has raised no arguable issues regarding the order from which he has appealed. He did not challenge the order setting the section 366.26 hearing by petition for extraordinary writ, and has accordingly forfeited his challenge to that order. (See § 366.26, subd. (l)(1) & (2).) His letter brief provides no reasoned argument or authority showing the juvenile court acted improperly in terminating his parental rights. Having found no claim of cognizable error in Father's letter brief, we conclude he has implicitly abandoned his appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
Schulman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Streeter, Acting P.J. /s/_________
Reardon, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.