Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. CK75306
THE COURT:Appellant T.J. (mother), mother of minor L.B. (born September 2007), appeals from the juvenile court’s order declaring L.B. a dependent of the court.
The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 300 on behalf of L.B. on November 14, 2008. A detention report, filed the same date, explained that on the evening of November 11, 2008, J.B. (father) was observed to be under the influence of alcohol. Father and mother were at a shopping center with L.B. Father was tossing L.B. in the air repeatedly and trying to catch him before he hit the ground. A witness observed the child fall and hit his head on the ground. Father continued to toss the child in the air after this fall and mother did nothing to stop father’s endangerment of the child. Deputy Babuacki of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department determined that father was drunk and arrested both parents for child cruelty.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code.
Father and mother have never been married to each other.
An investigation revealed that father has chronic alcohol abuse problems. He has four previous arrests for DUI and is currently on probation. Mother was aware of father’s alcohol abuse problems but denied that father posed any risk to her child. She refused to take any action to protect the child from father’s actions while under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Babuacki tested father’s blood alcohol level at the time of the parents’ arrest and the tests revealed that father was above the legal limit for driving. The family was categorized as being “high” risk for future abuse and neglect. DCFS sought continued detention and placement of L.B.
A hearing took place on November 14, 2008. Mother and father appeared and were appointed counsel. The court found that a prima facie case for detaining L.B. was established, and that a substantial danger existed to the physical or emotional health of the minor. L.B. was detained in shelter care and DCFS was granted discretion to detain the child in the home of any appropriate relative or nonrelated extended family member. Family reunification services were ordered for mother and father. DCFS was ordered to investigate father’s claim of American Indian heritage and notice any tribes accordingly. The court ordered monitored visits for father, and unmonitored visits for mother on the condition that she test free of drugs.
A hearing on the section 300 petition was set for December 17, 2008. Mother and father were given notice. DCFS filed a report dated December 17, 2008, containing information regarding their investigation of the incident and interviews with mother and father. DCFS recommended that the child be returned to mother’s care, but did not recommend that he be returned to father’s care.
Mother and father appeared at the hearing and were represented by separate counsel. L.B. was released to his mother on the condition that father not reside in the home. Father was permitted monitored visits. The matter was continued to January 23, 2009.
An interim report filed January 23, 2009, reported that mother and L.B. were living with maternal grandfather. Mother had enrolled in parenting classes and had an intake appointment through her private insurance to obtain individual counseling. Father was in an in-patient rehabilitation program. DCFS reported that mother was complying with the case plan and cooperating with DCFS, and that the child appeared safe in her care.
At the hearing on January 23, 2009, mother and father appeared and were represented by separate counsel. Father submitted to the petition, as amended. Mother submitted to the petition on the basis of the social worker’s report and other documents. The trial court found that the waivers signed by mother and father were knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. The court declared L.B. a dependent child of the court under section 300, subdivision (b) on the basis of the allegations in the petition, as amended. L.B. was ordered placed in the home of mother under the supervision of DCFS. Father was permitted monitored visits with a DCFS approved monitor. All prior orders were to remain in full force and effect. Family maintenance services were to be provided to mother and family reunification services to father.
On February 6, 2009, mother filed an appeal from the trial court’s January 23, 2009 order declaring L.B. a dependent of the court. On April 23, 2009, mother’s court-appointed counsel advised this court in writing that after reviewing the record, researching potential issues, and discussing such issues with mother, mother’s trial attorney, and the California Appellate Project, she was unable to file an opening brief on the merits on mother’s behalf. This court thereafter notified appellant that she had 30 days to submit by brief or letter any arguments or contentions she wished the court to consider.
On May 22, 2009, mother filed a letter stating her belief that DCFS and the court had done harm to her family; that the law enforcement officers involved in the November 11, 2008 incident had borne false witness and that forcing her son’s father to make a change in his life will result in nothing good. Mother challenges the veracity of the allegations in the complaint, various statements in the detention report, and various statements in the jurisdiction/disposition report filed December 17, 2008. She further claims that she was wrongly denied a trial, and that her attorney failed to order the surveillance videos from the shopping center where the incident occurred on November 11, 2008.
“An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, 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. [Citation.]” (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Mother has established no error in the proceedings below, nor any legal basis for reversal. Our own independent review of the record, including the points raised in mother’s letter, discloses no reversible error. We therefore dismiss the appeal.