From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re J.R.

Court of Appeal of California
Apr 22, 2009
No. B212728 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)

Opinion

B212728.

4-22-2009

In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.H., Defendant and Appellant.

M.H., in pro. per.; and Merrill L. Toole, under appointment by Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Not to be Published in the Official Reports


M.H., mother of minor J.R., appeals from (1) a juvenile court order denying her request for modification of the courts orders pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388; and (2) an order terminating her parental rights. After examination of the record, M.H.s appointed counsel notified this court that he was unable to find any arguable issues for appeal. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sade C. ).) Although M.H. filed a letter brief on her own, she asserts no claim of legal error. (Sade C., at p. 994.) We dismiss the appeal.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) first became involved in J.R.s case in December 2006 after receiving a referral. Three-month-old J.R. was living with his parents, M.H. (mother) and P.R. (father). In January 2007, M.H. and P.R. admitted past substance abuse and DCFS opened a voluntary family maintenance case. The parents both tested positive for methamphetamines. They were directed to participate in a substance abuse program and submit to random drug testing. Mother missed a drug test and failed to enroll in a substance abuse program. The family did not have stable housing. In February 2007, both parents failed to attend a meeting with DCFS. Shortly thereafter, the court detained then five-month-old J.R. In April 2007, the court asserted jurisdiction over J.R. under section 300, subdivision (b). The court found there was a substantial risk that J.R. would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of his parents failure to adequately supervise or protect him, and due to their inability to care for him because of their substance abuse.

Father is not a party to this appeal.

Over the next six months, mother failed to comply with the case plan which required her to participate in individual counseling, submit to random drug testing, complete a parenting class, and attend a weekly drug rehabilitation program. She and father were unreachable and did not maintain contact with DCFS. The paternal grandmother reported to DCFS that she occasionally saw both parents on the street looking filthy and disheveled. Mother visited J.R. only once. Although the parents arranged a second visit, they arrived one and a half hours late to the visit site—a foster care center. Upon learning that J.R. was no longer at the center, M.H. and P.R. became irate and threatened the foster care center staff.

In the meantime, J.R. thrived in his foster care placement and was described as a happy, good natured baby. DCFS recommended that the court terminate reunification services and place J.R. on a "fast track" to adoption. Mother failed to appear for the October 2007 six-month review hearing, but was represented by counsel. The juvenile court terminated family reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26.

Between October 2007 and February 2008, mother did not make contact with DCFS. She did not visit J.R. or follow the case plan. The paternal grandmother reported that mother was pregnant with a second child. DCFS was unable to find a family member willing to adopt J.R. but located a potential unrelated adoptive parent. In February 2008—one year after J.R. was originally detained—mother filed a section 388 petition requesting that the court change its orders terminating reunification services and ordering DCFS to find a suitable placement for J.R. Mother represented that she had enrolled in a drug treatment outpatient program and parenting classes. The trial court denied the petition.

In June 2008, mother filed another section 388 petition. She informed the court that she was participating in a drug treatment program, submitting clean drug tests, and receiving reunification services for J.R.s infant brother. Mother, along with father, had visited J.R. at least twice in March and May 2008. The trial court granted a hearing on the petition. By this time, J.R. had developed a close bond with his prospective adoptive mother. The prospective adoptive mother was strongly committed to adopting J.R., and he called her "ma ma." An adoptive home study was approved. DCFS filed a completed adoption assessment concluding that J.R. was likely to be adopted.

In October 2008, the juvenile court heard mothers section 388 petition and held the section 366.26 hearing. In supplemental and status review reports filed before the hearing, DCFS reported that mother was enrolled in a drug treatment program. Mother and father also had regularly visited J.R. beginning in May 2008. DCFS noted that J.R. cried when the prospective adoptive mother dropped him off for visits with his parents, and he frequently asked for her during the visits. DCFS recommended that parental rights be terminated. The department acknowledged that the parents loved J.R., but expressed concern that given their past and ongoing instability, they would not be able to provide the permanency and stability J.R. needed in the near future.

At the October 2008 hearing, mothers counsel argued that mother was committed to leading a sober lifestyle and had submitted clean drug tests for 10 or 11 consecutive months. She additionally argued that J.R. and his infant brother were only 15 months apart in age, were aware of their sibling relationship, and had a bond. Counsel asserted that since mother was receiving reunification services for the younger brother, she should also have further opportunity to reunify with J.R.

The trial court found that although the parents were trying to improve their lives, modifying the order terminating reunification services would not be in J.R.s best interest. The court further found by clear and convincing evidence that J.R. was likely to be adopted, and terminated parental rights.

DISCUSSION

Mother appeals from the denial of her section 388 petition and the order terminating her parental rights to J.R. Mothers appellate counsel submitted a letter stating he was not able to file an opening brief on the merits on mothers behalf under Sade C. As explained in Sade C., appellate courts have no duty to conduct an independent review of the record in dependency appeals when appointed counsel has certified he or she is unable to identify any meritorious issues. (Sade C., at pp. 981-982.)

We sent a letter to mother telling her she could file a letter or brief raising any issues she wished us to consider in her appeal. Mother submitted a supplemental letter brief in which she reports that she is currently enrolled in a residential drug and alcohol treatment center and plans to continue working to become a productive and responsible parent. She also informs us that she is receiving reunification services for J.R.s younger brother, and she feels that both children deserve to have a chance to live with their biological parents and experience life as a family unit with clean and sober parents. She states that she is aware of only two visits between J.R. and his brother since October or November 2008.

"An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and `present argument and authority on each point made. [Citations.] If he does not, he may, in the courts discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal." (Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) While we commend the positive steps mother has taken, her letter does not raise a claim of legal error or defect in the juvenile courts rulings in J.R.s case. In addition, our own independent review of the record discloses no reversible error. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur:

RUBIN, Acting P. J.

FLIER, J.


Summaries of

In re J.R.

Court of Appeal of California
Apr 22, 2009
No. B212728 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)
Case details for

In re J.R.

Case Details

Full title:In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Apr 22, 2009

Citations

No. B212728 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)