Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Super. Ct. Nos. JD113093, JD113094, JD113095, JD113096, H. A. Staley, Judge.
Maria B., in pro per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
B. C. Barman, County Counsel, and Judith M. Denny, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Cornell, J. and Gomes, J.
Petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) to vacate the orders of the juvenile court terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. We conclude petitioner abandoned her writ petition and, on that basis, we will dismiss it.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In January 2007, petitioner’s 12 year-old daughter M., 9 year-old daughter H., 4 year-old daughter and infant son were taken into protective custody by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) after M. reported being sexually molested by J., petitioner’s live-in boyfriend and father of her infant son. The molestation involved inappropriate touching and mounting M. while both J. and M. were fully clothed. Petitioner denied that the abuse occurred since she did not witness it. She also stated that the father of her daughters was deceased.
The department filed an original dependency petition (§ 300) alleging the children were at risk of sexual abuse because J. sexually abused M. and petitioner knew or should have known of the abuse and failed to protect her children. The children were placed together in foster care and petitioner and J. continued to live together.
At the initial hearing, the juvenile court detained the children pursuant to the petition and ordered no contact between the children and J. In March 2007, the court exercised dependency jurisdiction and ordered petitioner to participate in services for all four children and J. to participate in services for their son. Petitioner was ordered to participate in counseling for sexual abuse awareness and J. was ordered to participate in counseling for sexual abuse as a perpetrator. Meanwhile, the sheriff’s department assigned a detective to investigate the sexual abuse allegations for possible criminal charges.
In September 2007, the juvenile court lifted the no-contact order as to petitioner’s daughters and J. and set a contested six-month review hearing. However, the six-month review hearing had to be continued when, in October 2007, petitioner admitted telling M. to tell the social worker she wanted to visit J. so the family could reunite. The hearing was continued again when, in December 2007, H. disclosed that J. raped her on two occasions.
In February 2008, petitioner and J. were interviewed by the emergency response social worker. Petitioner appeared neither surprised nor upset when told M. and H. accused J. of having sexual intercourse with them. She denied knowing it occurred and vacillated between believing M. and H.’s allegations and J.’s denial. She claimed she had asked J. to leave the home but he had not done so yet. Following the interview, J. moved out of the house.
The department filed a subsequent petition (342), alleging that, in the summer of 2006, J. sexually abused and raped M. and H. and that, in March 2007, the juvenile court sustained allegations J. inappropriately touched M. on two occasions. The petition further alleged petitioner knew or reasonably should have known about the sexual abuse and failed to take action to protect the children and that she is in denial of her children being sexually abused.
In April 2008, following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the subsequent petition and continued the matter for a dispositional hearing on the petition. The department recommended the court terminate reunification efforts and set a hearing to consider a permanent plan because, even though petitioner completed her court-ordered counseling and a domestic violence program, she still appeared to deny that M. and H. were sexually abused.
On May 5, 2008, the juvenile court conducted a combined review hearing on the original petition and a dispositional hearing on the subsequent petition. Petitioner appeared but presented no testimony on her own behalf. Her attorney argued the court should continue services to the 18-month review hearing because petitioner completed her court-ordered services and promptly removed J. from her home once she learned of the rape allegations. Minors’ counsel informed the court that the “girls” did not want to return home and that M. was interested in being adopted. The department’s position was that petitioner and J. wanted to create the appearance that they were separated when, in fact, J. was living down the street from petitioner and paying her rent.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found petitioner and J. failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in their court-ordered services and there was not a substantial probability the children could be returned to their custody with continued services. The court terminated reunification efforts and set a section 366.26 hearing. This petition ensued.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner incorporates by reference trial counsel’s argument contained in the reporter’s transcript of the May 5 hearing, adding “There is really nothing more that [I] can say or argue on [my] behalf.” As a general principle, an appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Failure to claim error or defect presents no reason for a reviewing court to reach the merits of any unraised point and constitutes an abandonment of the appeal. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Having failed to articulate a claim of error on appeal, petitioner has abandoned her writ petition. The appropriate result in this case is dismissal.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ is dismissed. This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.