Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. JD17705 & JD17706
RUSHING, P.J.
Appellant S.M., mother of twins J.R. and P.R. (twins), appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. The twins were born severely premature with a myriad of associated medical problems. Before the twins were to be released from their long neonatal hospital stay, the juvenile court approved a protective custody warrant based on allegations that the parents were unable to care for the special needs of the twins. After the Santa Clara Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), the juvenile court assumed jurisdiction and ordered reunification services for the parents.
All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Although the parents initially progressed well in their case plan and overnight visits with the twins, by the time of the 12 month review hearing, the Department recommended termination of services. Visitation had suffered a setback after the father threatened the case worker and the twins’ foster mother. The parents had asked for a reduction in visitation, and had failed to make significant progress in their ability to care for the twins’ special needs. 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 the twins had been placed in an adoptive home and the parents had not visited the twins for close to nine months. The parents reportedly told the case worker that they thought it was in the twins’ best interest to be adopted as they were unable to care for them. The Juvenile Court adopted the recommendation of the Department and terminated parental rights, freeing the twins for adoption. 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 May 26, 2009, we notified appellant of her right to submit written argument in her own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed and we have received nothing from appellant.
In a letter dated July 7, 2009, the Department requests that this court 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.