Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV100114.
Reardon, Acting P.J.
Dan C. (father) has appealed from an order terminating parental rights, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father’s appointed counsel has filed a brief stating that, after a thorough review of the entire record, she was unable to find any arguable issues for appeal. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 981-982.) Counsel notified her client that she intended to file a “ ‘No Issues Statement’ ” and advised him that he could file a letter with this court suggesting issues for review. This court likewise advised father of the opportunity to file a letter stating issues he felt should be reviewed on appeal. Father has responded with a letter that in turn makes no showing of an arguable issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
HISTORY
In September 2010, the juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction over Danielle M., born in August 2008. As to father, the court sustained allegations of no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)) due to institutionalization; and abuse of siblings (id., subd. (j)) (four siblings placed for adoption and the failure to address issues that led to the removal/subsequent adoption of the other children). At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court took judicial notice of (1) the order of commitment finding father incompetent to stand trial for numerous pending felony and wobbler drug-related offenses arising out of an August 18, 2009 incident; and (2) minutes indicating the next review of his commitment was slated for April 1, 2011. (Dan C. v. Superior Court (Dec. 21, 2010, A130269) [nonpub. opn.].)
At the request of counsel for the minor, the court also took judicial notice of dependency proceedings for sibling L.C. After reviewing the file, the court found that father’s mental health issues made it impossible for him to reunify with L.C.. Thereafter, as to Danielle’s dependency, it ordered reunification services bypassed under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) and further found by clear and convincing evidence under section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1) that it would be detrimental to provide father reunification services because of the likely length of incarceration, the lack of bonding, and an unlikelihood of success. We denied father’s petition assailing the order bypassing reunification services and directing that a section 366.26 hearing be held, concluding that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s order.
The social worker’s report for the section 366.26 hearing indicated that Danielle had been placed with foster parents who had adopted her sister, and Danielle was adjusting well. Father sent cards and letters but had not visited because he was in custody at Metropolitan State Hospital. Adoption was respondent Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services’ chosen permanent plan. Danielle had bonded with the prospective adoptive parents, as well as her sibling and foster brother; her needs were being met, and she was receiving the attention she deserved. Her parents had been offered services over the years with other children, yet failed to demonstrate improvement in parenting and coping skills or substance abuse and mental health issues, nor had they addressed the issues that led to repeated interventions.
The report also concluded that Danielle was likely to be adopted and the potential adoptive parents were committed to adoption. Her health was good except for dental problems; dental surgery was scheduled for early this year. Danielle was in preschool, received speech therapy and qualified for services through Redwood Coast Regional Center. She seemed happy, content and curious, and appeared to the worker to be bonded to the foster parents and the other children in the home.
An adoptions worker contacted father by mail. Upon receiving the letter, he phoned the department and spoke with the receptionist, informing her “in a very aggressive manner” that he did not agree to the adoption. No further contact was attempted due to his longstanding mental health issues and previous aggressive behavior.
Danielle’s court-appointed special advocate submitted a report to the court indicating support for the department’s recommendation to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court adopted the department’s recommendations and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
We presume that an appealed-from judgment or order is correct. Therefore, the appellant must make a challenge, thereby raising claims of reversible error or other defect, and setting forth argument and authority on each point made. If the appellant does not, the reviewing court may, in its discretion, deem the appeal abandoned; in that event, it may order dismissal. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Neither counsel nor father have raised a claim of reversible error or other defect, and no argument or authority backing any such claim has been presented to this court. Father’s letter is nothing more than a plea for custody of Danielle and to get his child back. He stated he always took her to doctor’s appointments. His letter bears no legal consequence.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: Sepulveda, J., Rivera, J.