Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. 94163-5, Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Caroline J. Todd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Janelle E. Kelley, Interim County Counsel, Fresno County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Wiseman, J., and Dawson, J.
Mother S.T. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her six-year-old daughter C.J. The mother’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated July 10, 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). After this court extended time for the mother to personally file a letter brief, she submitted a letter in which she professed her love and her desire to care for C.J. The mother attached to her letter a highlighted excerpt from a social worker’s report describing visits between C.J., her older siblings and the mother.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
However, the mother failed to identify any error by the trial court in reaching its decision. Her omission is fatal to her appeal.
“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.) . . . With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal [is] 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.)
Because the mother has failed to raise a claim of prejudicial error by the trial court which is supported by the record and the law (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994), we will affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.