Opinion
H033687.
7-14-2009
In re F.S. et al., a Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDRENS SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
Appellant A.S. appeals from a judgment entered dismissing dependency jurisdiction over her children F.S. and W.S., awarding custody to their father T.S. and granting her visitation. The original petition filed on April 21, 2006, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, alleged that the children suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their parents, and that the father had a criminal history of domestic violence and substance abuse. As to W.S., the petition further alleged that his parents were unable to appropriately respond to his special needs. The juvenile court ordered the children into protective custody and at the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing ordered the children removed. The court also ordered that both parents receive reunification services.
The parents both continued to participate in reunification services until the 12 month review hearing. After a contested hearing, the court terminated services to the mother, and, on December 14, 2007, she appealed that order. In an unpublished opinion filed October 14, 2008, we affirmed the order terminating reunification services.
On January 7, 2008, the juvenile court ordered the children returned to father and ordered that the family receive family maintenance services. The court granted mother bimonthly supervised visitation for two hours at a time. By July, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Childrens Services (Department) reported that the children were doing very well with their father and were enjoying visitation with their mother. The Department recommended continuing family maintenance services and setting the matter for consideration of dismissal within 90 days. The court adopted the recommendations. After a contested hearing on November 14, 2008, the court dismissed the case and awarded full physical custody to father with continued bimonthly supervised visitation to the mother. This timely appeal ensued.
On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent appellant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sade C.).) In the opening brief, counsel acknowledged that this court has no duty to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, but requested that we allow appellant the opportunity to submit a brief in propria persona pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C., (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 543-544 (Ben C.). On March 20, 2009, we notified appellant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. On April 28, 2009, we received a letter from appellant accompanied by a stack of documents.
In her letter, appellant contends that she has been the victim of "cruel and unusual pumishment [sic], the state departments [sic] kidnapped my children by committing fraud, obstruction of justice and violations of my civil rights." She further contends that many errors were committed in her case by the State of California and her attorney. She argues that she did not receive a fair trial under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Article Six of the European Convention of Human Rights. She also claims she was a victim of "witness tampering." She requests that we interview her children to discover the truth about a number of purported lies told by the father.
Although mother recites and challenges much of the evidence below by attacking its veracity, she does not explain how any of the recited facts support her claims of error or how her claimed errors are relevant to the current appeal. We are unable to identify any issues raised in her letter that are cognizable in the instant appeal. Therefore, we find no need to request further briefing in response to this letter.
In a letter dated, April 21, 2009, the respondent asks us to dismiss the appeal. The appellant having failed to raise any issue on appeal, the appeal must be dismissed as abandoned. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th 529; Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
WE CONCUR:
PREMO, J.
ELIA, J.
In re F.S. (Oct. 14, 2008, H032382) [nonpub. opn.].