Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Super. Ct. No. 04CEJ300104, Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
M.M. (mother) appealed from a February 2010 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her two young daughters (the children). After reviewing the entire record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. Notably, mother had submitted to a report and recommendation that the Fresno County Superior Court (juvenile court) select adoption as the permanent plan for the children and terminate parental rights. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Mother has now submitted a letter in which she describes her current circumstances. She also requests therapeutic visitation with the children upon her release from prison. Mother has been incarcerated, first in county jail and later in state prison, throughout the children’s dependency. In arguing for therapeutic visitation, mother relies on a mental health therapist’s recommendation made during an earlier phase of the dependency proceedings. The therapist evaluated each child in July 2009 and essentially opined that visits in a jail setting were problematic, especially for the younger of the two children. The therapist also recommended “[i]n the future if it is appropriate, [the younger child] be referred for therapeutic visitation with mom after she is released....”
In August 2009, soon after the therapist’s evaluation, the juvenile court adjudged the children juvenile dependents, removed them from parental custody, and denied mother reunification services on multiple grounds. The juvenile court’s decision did include a visitation order for mother with the children, but not an order for future therapeutic visitation. The juvenile court in turn set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement permanent plans for the children. Although mother filed a notice of intent to challenge the juvenile court’s August 2009 decision, she never pursued the matter by filing a petition for extraordinary writ with this court. Consequently, this court dismissed mother’s writ proceeding as abandoned. (M.M. v. Superior Court, F058561 (dismissal order).) Mother therefore has forfeited therapeutic visitation as an arguable issue on appeal from the subsequent February 2010 order terminating parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); In re Anthony B. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022-1023.) In any event, given the order terminating her rights, mother is no longer entitled as a matter of law to any visitation with her children.
Mother’s letter otherwise neither addresses the termination proceedings nor sets forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing does exist. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to an appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant does not do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Here, mother does not raise any claim of error or other defect against the termination order from which she appeals.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.