Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. 06CEFL05461, Kim Nystrom-Geist, Judge.
Shawn S., in pro. per. for Objector and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
OPINION
Shawn S. appeals from an order declaring his daughter free from his custody and care (Fam. Code, § 7800 et seq.). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated May 22, 2007, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order dated May 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, he asks for a second chance to be a father to the child. He acknowledges that he consented to the termination of his rights but claims he was not in his right mind and suffering from a nervous breakdown. The appellate record, however, does not support his claim.
Rather, the record reveals appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to trial, expressly stated his desire not to put his daughter through a trial and repeatedly consented to the termination of his rights. He was aware of his options and rights as well as the fact that he was acting contrary to his attorney’s advice. Furthermore, the court expressly inquired of appellant’s trial attorney whether there were any concerns regarding appellant’s competency to enter into the stipulation. The answer was “No.” Similarly, the court asked appellant if there was any reason appellant thought he was not able to make a decision that day. Appellant replied “No.” The court also repeatedly offered to continue the matter to give appellant more time to consider his decision. Appellant declined each of the court’s offers. On this record, we conclude appellant has failed to make an arguable claim of trial court error affecting the outcome of this case. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) Thus, the juvenile court’s decision is presumptively correct. (Ibid.)
“An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect (see ibid.), and “present argument and authority on each point made” (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591; accord, In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 278). If he does not, he may, in the court’s discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. (Berger v. Godden, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1119.) In that event, it may order dismissal. (Ibid.) Such a result is appropriate here. With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal was presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of any unraised “points”--and, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. (See People v. Brigham (1979) 25 Cal.3d 283, 289.)” (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Having found no claim of trial court error in appellant’s letter as to matters within the scope of this appeal, we conclude appellant has abandoned the appeal from the order freeing Kayla L. from his custody and care and will dismiss this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.