Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nancy B. Williamsen, Commissioner., Super. Ct. No. 509127.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Harris, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
OPINION
Wendy W. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter B. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated November 16, 2007, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order filed November 26, 2007, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Since then, appellant has filed a letter in this court. In it, she complains her trial attorney did not introduce medical evidence to controvert appellant’s failed drug tests and pertaining to B.’s health “prior to the incident.” Thus, appellant appears to allege her trial counsel was ineffective at the jurisdictional and/or reunification review phase of B.’s dependency. On review, we will dismiss the appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
In April 2006, then three-month-old B. was hospitalized and detained after being diagnosed with Shaken Baby Syndrome, fractures, malnutrition, and a burn to the right foot. Appellant, a prescription drug addict, had left B. frequently in the care of her neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. P., also drug addicts. Mr. P. gave inconsistent explanations of how B. suffered her injuries. After a failed polygraph test, he confessed to harming her. It was also alleged some of B.’s injuries likely occurred while she was in appellant’s care.
In July 2006, appellant expressly waived her rights and submitted to the court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) (neglect) on social worker reports filed by respondent Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (the Agency). Thereafter, the Stanislaus County Superior Court exercised its jurisdiction over the child, adjudged her a dependent, and removed her from appellant’s care subject to family reunification services.
Over the ensuing six months, appellant failed to make progress in her reunification plan. Most notably, she did not regularly attend B.’s medical appointments, missing several important ones, and she continued to use drugs and declined residential drug treatment. Consequently, in its six-month status review, the agency recommended the court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption. In February 2007, the court conducted a contested six-month review hearing and adopted the agency’s recommendations by setting a permanency planning hearing. At the subsequent hearing, the court terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Appellant sought writ review of the February 2007 setting order. In her petition, which she filed in persona propria, she alleged the court erred earlier by removing B. from her custody on the theory B. was not injured while in her care. Notably, she did not allege her attorney was ineffective. This court denied the petition. ( F052331, Wendy W. v. Superior Court.) We explained to the extent appellant sought to challenge the court’s jurisdictional finding, its adjudication or its removal order, she waived her right to appellate review by not appealing from the court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. (Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811-812.)
Similarly, having failed to raise her claims of ineffective assistance either by an appeal from the court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders or in her writ petition, she is foreclosed now from raising her ineffective assistance claims in this appeal. (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1146, 1149-1151; § 366.26, subd. (l).) Further, having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude appellant’s complaints do not amount to claims that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) Thus, the juvenile court’s decision is presumptively correct. (Ibid.)
“An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 . . . .) Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect (see ibid.), and ‘present argument and authority on each point made’ (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591 . . .; accord, In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 278 . . .). If he does not, he may, in the court's discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. (Berger v. Godden [(1985)] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113] at p. 1119.) In that event, it may order dismissal. (Ibid.) Such a result is appropriate here. With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal was presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of any unraised ‘points’—and, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. (See People v. Brigham (1979) 25 Cal.3d 283, 289 . . . .)” (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Having found no claim of trial court error in appellant’s letter as to matters within the scope of this appeal, we conclude appellant has legally abandoned the appeal from the order terminating her parental rights and will dismiss this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.