Opinion
F076125
02-01-2018
In re JASMINE H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VERONICA H., Defendant and Appellant.
Michelle Engelhardt Danley, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 16CEJ300143-2)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary Green, Commissioner. Michelle Engelhardt Danley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Franson, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Veronica H. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to her now one-year-old daughter, Jasmine. After reviewing the juvenile court record, appellant's court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother's behalf. This court granted mother 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. --------
Mother filed a letter but failed to address the termination findings or orders or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the section 366.26 hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In May 2016, authorities found then three-month-old Jasmine and her four-year-old sister, Estrella, residing with mother and her boyfriend, Lorenzo C., in a makeshift living space in an open field with no running water or electricity and surrounded by debris: broken furniture, fans, lumber, a dirty and torn mattress and a broken refrigerator. Mother was married to Lorenzo P. but identified Lorenzo C. as Jasmine's father.
The Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) filed a dependency petition on the children's behalf, alleging the parents failed to protect them and provide them adequate food and clothing. The department identified Lorenzo P. as the presumed father of both children and Lorenzo C. as Jasmine's presumed father.
The juvenile court initially placed the children with mother under a safety plan that she reside with the maternal uncle. However, the court issued protective warrants for the children and ordered them detained after mother failed to comply with the safety plan. The department placed the children in a foster home.
Lorenzo P. was excluded as the biological father of the children. He requested placement of Estrella, which the juvenile court granted and dismissed its jurisdiction as to her.
At disposition, the juvenile court ordered Jasmine removed from mother and Lorenzo C. and provided them reunification services to the six-month review hearing. However, the court found mother made minimal progress in resolving the cause for Jasmine's removal and that Lorenzo C. made no progress. Consequently, in January 2017, the court terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing to be conducted in May 2017. Neither parent petitioned the court's setting order.
In April 2017, mother filed a modification petition under section 388 asking the juvenile court to either return Jasmine to her custody with family maintenance services or reinstate reunification services and increase visitation. As changed circumstances, she alleged that she ended her relationship with Lorenzo C., was scheduled to graduate from a parenting class on May 24, and was enrolled in a 12-week group program to address domestic violence and completed five of the sessions. She was renting a room in an apartment and had obtained employment as well as located a family member who was willing to provide childcare if Jasmine were returned to her custody.
The department opposed mother's section 388 petition, arguing she failed to enroll in the child abuse intervention program and complete the mental health assessment required by her reunification services plan. The department opined mother did not have the capacity and ability to complete all of the objectives of her treatment plan and provide for Jasmine's safety.
On May 23, 2017, the juvenile court denied mother's section 388 petition, finding she failed to make a prima facie showing that her circumstances had changed such that the modifications she requested was in Jasmine's best interest. The court set a contested section 366.26 hearing for August 1.
The department recommended the juvenile court find Jasmine was likely to be adopted and terminate parental rights. Jasmine was happy, healthy, and developmentally on target. She had been with her foster parents for 10 months and they wanted to adopt her.
As for mother's contact with Jasmine, the department reported that mother attended the majority of her visits, only missing those that required her to appear in court. During visits, mother was very interactive and playful with Jasmine. For example, mother used age-appropriate toys to teach Jasmine and praised her when she was successful. She assisted Jasmine in standing, walking, picking up the toys, passing the toys from hand to hand and stacking blocks. She was nurturing and loving, hugging, kissing and holding Jasmine and speaking to her in a gentle tone. And Jasmine was very responsive to mother, looking at her, smiling, cooing and laughing.
The department opined that any relationship Jasmine had with mother was not significant enough to outweigh the benefit of adoption with her foster parents.
Mother testified at the contested section 366.26 hearing on August 1, 2017, asserting the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. She told the court she visited Jasmine twice a week under supervision for one hour each visit. She described helping Jasmine walk and playing with her. Jasmine called her "mom." When the visits ended, Jasmine sometimes had a hard time separating from her and pressed her cheek against mother's cheek. She believed terminating her parental rights would be detrimental to Jasmine because it would deprive her of a mother's affection.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights. The court found that mother regularly visited and maintained contact with Jasmine but did not find the beneficial parent-child exception to adoption applied.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant's burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and 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.)
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).
Mother does not argue the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights. Rather, she asks for full custody of Jasmine based on her completion of the parenting class and 12-week group program she referenced in her April 2017 section 388 petition. She asserts, "I want to have my daughter by my side with the love of her family. I want to see Jasmine grow up and give her the love that only a mother can give her child."
Since mother does not challenge the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights, she has failed to raise any arguable issue on appeal. Consequently, we dismiss her appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.