Opinion
F043494.
10-28-2003
In re JOEY A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODOLFO A., Defendant and Appellant.
Michael B. McPartland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT*
Rodolfo A. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his son Joey. Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated August 25, 2003, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). We have since extended time twice for appellant to personally file a letter brief.
On October 22, 2003, appellant filed a pleading entitled "OPENING BRIEF" with this court. We have carefully reviewed the pleading and observe that he essentially asks this court to review the record in this case for error. He does not raise on his own any claim of error. This court is not required, however, to conduct a review of the entire record whenever an indigent parent submits a brief that raises no specific issues on appeal from a juvenile dependency judgment or order. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 981 et seq.) Rather, appellant must establish that the trial court committed prejudicial error.
"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 courts discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. (Berger v. Godden [(1985)] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113] at p. 1119.) In that event, it may order dismissal. (Ibid.) Such a result is appropriate here. With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal was 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.)
Having found no claim of trial court error in appellants "OPENING BRIEF," we conclude appellant has abandoned the appeal from the order terminating his parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.