From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re I.M.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Sep 25, 2009
No. H034055 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2009)

Opinion


In re I.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MONTEREY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.M., Defendant and Appellant. H034055 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District September 25, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. J42484, J42486 & J42485

RUSHING, P.J.

Appellant J.M., father of I.M., A.M. and J.M., appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (J), alleging that father, who had a criminal history, was arrested for physically abusing the mother, and that the parents had failed to seek proper medical treatment for the children. The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction, removed the children from the parent’s care, and ordered reunification services.

All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Although the parents initially progressed well in their case plan, by the time of the 12 month review hearing, the Department recommended termination of services. The parents were homeless and no longer together as a couple and the mother’s whereabouts were unknown. Additionally, father had been arrested for disorderly conduct, intoxication and for possession of a dangerous weapon, a sword. Father’s visitation record had become inconsistent, with numerous late or missed visits. As a result, at the 12 month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated services and set the matter for permanency planning.

At the section 366.26 hearing, the Department reported that mother had not visited with the children since the last hearing and father’s visits were sporadic. The Department recommended that parental rights be terminated and that the children be freed for adoption. After a contested hearing where father argued that the best permanent plan would be placement with him or one of his relatives, the juvenile court adopted the recommendation of the Department and terminated parental rights. 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 June 9, 2009, we notified appellant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received nothing from appellant.

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

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.


Summaries of

In re I.M.

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Sep 25, 2009
No. H034055 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2009)
Case details for

In re I.M.

Case Details

Full title:In re I.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MONTEREY…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Sep 25, 2009

Citations

No. H034055 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2009)