Opinion
A157992
01-30-2020
In re SALVADOR A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN G., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1700781)
Juan G. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to Salvador A. and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) We appointed counsel to represent Father on appeal. Father's counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. Counsel found no arguable issues and advised Father that a "No Issues Statement" would be filed. Counsel served her "No Issues Statement" on Father, sent him a copy of the record, and sent him a letter explaining the appellate process and advising him that he may be permitted to file a letter suggesting trial court errors to be reviewed by this court. No letter or response has been received from Father. We dismiss the appeal.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
I. BACKGROUND
Salvador came to the juvenile court's attention when he and his mother tested positive for methamphetamine at his birth. The Contra Costa County Child and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed a dependency petition and an amended petition on Salvador's behalf pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The parents waived their right to a contested hearing on the petition and submitted on the Bureau's reports. The court sustained the allegations in the amended petition that Father and Mother had substance abuse problems that impeded their ability to care for Salvador and that a substantial risk existed that Salvador would suffer serious physical harm in Father's care.
At the disposition hearing, the court adjudged Salvador to be a dependent of the court. The court removed Salvador from parental custody and ordered reunification services for the parents. The parents denied Indian heritage, and no relatives were offered for placement.
The parents failed to comply with their respective case plans, and/or regularly visit Salvador, though Father was more consistent than Mother. At the contested combined 12-month and 18-month review hearing, the court terminated services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. The court orally advised the parents of their right to request extraordinary writ review of its order.
The court held the section 366.26 hearing at which both parents were present, and Father was assisted with a Spanish interpreter. Father's counsel objected to the order terminating parental rights, arguing that the Bureau did not properly service the case and there were half-siblings with whom Salvador could benefit from having contact. Salvador's counsel joined the Bureau in arguing for the termination of parental rights. Mother's counsel made an oral section 388 motion premised on Mother's purported completion of an in-patient treatment program, and the court denied the motion. The court took judicial notice of Father's recent positive drug test results for methamphetamine. At the conclusion of the evidence and argument, the court found that notice was proper, that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply, that Salvador was adoptable, and that no exceptions to adoption applied. The court terminated parental rights, and Father timely appealed.
II. DISCUSSION AND DISPOSITION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) The appellant bears the burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defects and to present argument and authority on each point made. If the appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Because Father has not raised any claim of error or other defect in this matter, the appeal is dismissed. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 844-846; In re Sade C., at p. 994.)
/s/_________
BROWN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
POLLAK, P. J. /s/_________
STREETER, J.