Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. 97889-3, Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Gino Solenni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.
L.C. appeals from a post-permanency review order continuing legal guardianship as the permanent plan for her teenage son H.B. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.3, subd. (e)). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter in June 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). We thereafter extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Appellant has now filed such a letter brief with this court. In it, she contends the court erred “by failing to grant the request of a contested hearing on the status review report.” Having reviewed the appellate record and as discussed below, we conclude appellant’s contention does not amount to a claim that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994). We will affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
H.B. has been a dependent child for more than half of his life as a result of appellant’s domestic violence and child endangerment. Appellant received reunification services, including outpatient psychiatric treatment, until February 2003 when the court terminated services and ordered H.B. and his two older sisters placed in long-term foster care.
Over the ensuing years, the children fared well in foster care but their relationship with appellant grew strained because of appellant’s increasingly erratic and confrontational behavior. Nevertheless, appellant attempted several times without success to either regain custody of her children or reinstate reunification services. Over the years, visitation has varied from supervised to unsupervised depending on appellant’s circumstances.
In August 2007, the court changed H.B.’s permanent plan from long-term foster care to legal guardianship with his former foster parents. Soon thereafter and following an overnight visit with her children, appellant failed to return them to their respective homes and absconded with them to Stockton, California. Since then, the court ordered visits to occur on a supervised basis. Nevertheless, appellant has continued to challenge her son’s legal guardianship and the court’s visitation order.
His sisters who lived separately from him have remained in long-term foster care.
In October 2007, appellant unsuccessfully petitioned (§ 388) to modify the court’s legal guardianship order for H.B. and visitation order. She also sought the return of all three children to her custody. We affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition in In re A.H. et al. (F054193).
In March 2008, the court conducted its first status review of H.B.’s legal guardianship. Before the hearing, respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services (department) submitted a report in which it recommended continued guardianship for H.B. By then 13 years old, H.B. was doing well, in terms of his medical, developmental, educational and emotional status and his needs were being met. H.B. liked living with his guardian. The guardian was frustrated, however, by appellant’s attempts to have H.B. removed from her (the guardian’s) care. Appellant made several allegations in 2007 to the licensing unit about the guardian’s home. Appellant’s latest complaint was that H.B. did not have shoes for winter. To support her claim, appellant gave the licensing unit a photo of H.B. holding a pair of sandals. H.B. was nine or ten years old when the photo was taken. None of appellant’s allegations were substantiated.
At the start of the March status review hearing, H.B.’s attorney, along with county counsel, submitted on the department’s report and asked that the court not change its prior orders. Appellant’s attorney, on the other hand, announced appellant objected to the plan. Counsel explained:
“She wants to challenge the report. She feels it’s not the best plan for the minor; that she could provide a safe home for the minor and a safe environment. And that’s basically it.
“She would like to be reunited with her child who is of age now to -- he’s 13 now. We would like to at least have the minor’s input as to whether he still wants that plan. We’ve asked for that in the past.”
H.B.’s attorney responded by noting the report’s disclosure that the teenager was quite happy where he was. The attorney added “I know it to be true from conversations over the years I’ve had with [H.B.] about his placement.”
The court thereafter found legal guardianship continued to be the appropriate permanent plan for H.B. and continued supervised visits between appellant and H.B.
DISCUSSION
At the March 2008 hearing, appellant apparently wanted once again to be reunified with H.B. based on her feeling that she could provide a safe home. She also wanted H.B.’s “input as to whether he still wants [the legal guardianship] plan.” However, her desires alone neither warranted nor entitled her to a contested hearing.
A parent who seeks to terminate a permanent plan of legal guardianship must petition the court pursuant to section 388 and show by a preponderance of the evidence that changed circumstances or new evidence exists and the child’s best interest would be served by a change in placement to the parent’s home. (§ 366.3, subd. (b); In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1081-1087.) Otherwise, it is presumed that the child’s continued care in his permanent plan is in his best interests. (§ 366.3, subd. (e).) Unlike the situation when a child is in long-term foster care, the court need not consider all permanency planning options, including return of custody to the parent, when it reviews a legal guardianship. (§ 366.3, subd. (g).) Indeed, it is within the court’s prerogative once a legal guardianship is established to dismiss its dependency jurisdiction over the child.
In this case, appellant did not petition to terminate H.B.’s legal guardianship nor did she make any offer of proof that circumstances had changed since the preceding August when the court granted the legal guardianship and that H.B.’s best interest would be served by terminating the legal guardianship and being placed in her home. Thus, it is not even arguable that the court erred by proceeding with its review and not granting her a contested hearing.
“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 [(1985)] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113] at p. 1119.)” (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Having reviewed her letter brief and the record herein, we conclude appellant has not raised a claim of reversible error regarding the trial court’s decision.
DISPOSITION
The order continuing legal guardianship as the permanent plan for H.B. is affirmed.