Opinion
F077339
09-26-2018
In re M.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.F., Defendant and Appellant.
Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JJV069408A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Judge. Aida Aslanian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Summer F. is the mother of three-year-old M.S. On March 6, 2018, the juvenile court terminated her parental rights as to M.S. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and she appealed. After reviewing the juvenile court record, Summer's court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on Summer's behalf. This court granted Summer leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Summer submitted a letter in which she asks for another chance to reunify with M.S. She does not allege the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights.
We conclude Summer failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In September 2015, a social worker from the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) responded to a report that Summer tested positive for methamphetamine while giving birth to M.S. Summer was sleeping all day and not bonding with the baby. She was also saying "strange things." Summer had two sons who lived in Texas and twins who died a week after they were born. Summer and Nathan, M.S.'s father, were allowed to take her home. However, the agency took M.S. into protective custody in November 2015, after Summer was arrested on an outstanding warrant out of Texas for grand theft. M.S. appeared to be hungry and dirty and Summer used methamphetamine approximately a week before. She was not making sense and was not taking her psychotropic medication. The agency placed M.S. in a foster home.
In early January 2016, Summer was extradited to Texas but appeared out of custody at the jurisdictional hearing several weeks later. She said the charges in Texas were the result of mistaken identity and were resolved. She planned to live in Tulare County. The juvenile court continued the hearing so she could confer with her attorney and ordered weekly supervised visitation.
In February 2016, the juvenile court adjudged M.S. a dependent child and set a hearing in April 2016 for disposition. The agency placed M.S. with her paternal grandmother in March 2016.
In April 2016, the juvenile court conducted an uncontested dispositional hearing. Summer was incarcerated in Texas, serving 12 months for theft. The court denied her reunification services (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1)) and ordered reunification services for Nathan.
Nathan participated in reunification services and developed a relationship with M.S. He struggled however to maintain his sobriety. The juvenile court returned M.S. to his custody under family maintenance services in January 2017, provided he continue to randomly drug test and move into the home of the paternal grandmother to care for M.S. Nathan, however, did not move into the grandmother's home and tested positive for methamphetamine in January and February 2017. Consequently, the agency filed a supplemental petition under section 387, alleging family maintenance services had been ineffective in protecting M.S.
Meanwhile, in October 2016, Summer was released from custody and returned to California. While in custody, she completed courses in parenting and health education, a 12-Step Program and Bridge for Life and participated in Bible study. She filed a section 388 petition requesting reunification services and visitation. She also requested placement.
In April 2017, the juvenile court sustained the supplemental petition, ordered M.S. removed from Nathan's custody and continued services for Nathan. The court granted Summer's section 388 petition and ordered the agency to provide her reunification services. The court set the 24-month review hearing for October 2017.
In June 2017, Summer returned to Texas to attend a high school reunion. She said she would return in September but did not. Nathan continued to use methamphetamine. In its report for the 24-month review hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In November 2017, at the 24-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for March 6, 2018, to implement a permanent plan. Neither parent filed an extraordinary writ petition challenging the court's setting order.
The agency recommended the juvenile court terminate parental rights and free M.S. for adoption by her paternal grandmother.
On March 6, 2018, Summer appeared through her attorney at the section 366.26 hearing. Her attorney submitted the matter, stating she attempted to contact Summer but Summer did not return her call and Summer failed to visit M.S. Nathan's attorney agreed with the agency's recommendation to terminate his parental rights.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
At a termination hearing, the juvenile court's focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) (exceptions to adoption).
Summer does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's adoptability finding and termination order. Rather, she asks for another opportunity to prove herself a suitable parent.
We conclude Summer failed to set forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.