In re Dorothy T.

Full title: LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

Date published: Apr 9, 2008

No. B204408 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2008)

Opinion

In re DOROTHY T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRICIA T., Defendant and Appellant. B204408 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Seventh Division April 9, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles Superior Court Super. Ct. No. CK42934. Nancy Brown, Judge.

Tricia T. in propria persona; John L. Dodd & Associates and John L. Dodd for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

ZELON, J.

Appellant Tricia T. timely appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying hearing on her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 with respect to her children Dorothy T. and Tercel T.

A petition was filed on July 5, 2000 alleging juvenile court jurisdiction over the children. On April 8, 2002, pursuant to a mediation agreement, the petition was sustained as amended and family reunification services were ordered. Ultimately, a permanent plan of long term foster care was ordered for both children, and mother was given unmonitored visitation rights. Mother has filed a series of section 388 petitions, all alleging that the children should be returned to her on the basis of the 2002 mediation agreement, and asserting that the children are being abused in their foster placement and desire to live with her. The petition at issue in this appeal makes the same arguments, and was denied without hearing on November 29, 2007, on the grounds that the relief sought would not be in the best interests of the children.

After the appeal was filed, we appointed counsel. After examination of the record, counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues and so informed this Court. The Court advised appellant that she had the right to personally submit any contentions she feels the Court should consider and further that the appeal would be dismissed in the absence of arguable issues. Appellant filed a letter brief with the Court on February 25, 2008. That brief restated the issues she has brought before the juvenile court repeatedly with respect to her assertion that she is entitled to have the children returned to her, but failed to assign any legally cognizable error to the order, nor to raise any relevant legal issue. The letter brief failed to support her argument with any citation to the record or with any legal authority as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as abandoned. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

We concur:PERLUSS, P. J., WOODS, J.