Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County No. 09JD0045 George Orndoff, Judge.
Jessie F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Poochigian, J.
Jennifer L. (mother) appealed from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her son Anthony. After reviewing the entire record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Mother has now submitted a letter in which she makes a variety of conclusory claims against an unnamed social worker. Mother alleges that the social worker: did not properly inform her of any proceedings concerning Anthony; promised to continue mother’s reunification services; promised mother phone and mail contact with Anthony that she did not receive; never processed mother’s mailed-in paperwork and documents; and never gave Anthony letters, gifts, or pictures that mother mailed in care of the social worker.
We conclude mother’s letter fails to make a good cause showing that there exists any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) One, mother fails to cite to any evidence in the appellate record to support any of her various claims, despite the fact that counsel mailed mother a copy of the appellate record to aid her preparation. Two, mother ignores the facts of this case, as summarized by appellate counsel. Approximately a month after the court removed Anthony and granted her reunification services, mother moved across the country, did not follow through with services, and never returned. In addition, attempts by respondent Kings County Department of Human Services to arrange telephone visits between mother and child were unsuccessful because mother’s telephone was disconnected. Meanwhile, Anthony experienced positive growth and progress in foster care and did not exhibit any of the severe behaviors mother previously reported. Three, mother overlooks the fact that Anthony’s dependency had reached that point at which the juvenile court’s focus had shifted to the child’s needs for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) Because Anthony was likely to be adopted, the law required the juvenile court to order adoption and its necessary consequence, termination of parental rights, unless there was a compelling reason for finding that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) There was no such compelling reason here.
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to an appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant does not do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.