Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. JD18227 & JD18228
RUSHING, P.J.
Appellant S.S., father of 12 year old J.S. and eleven year old M.S. appeals from an order denying his motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), and an order granting a petition to terminate father’s visitation with the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388.) The facts underlying this ongoing dependency proceeding are summarized in this court’s opinion in H033909.
In Re J.S. et al. (Aug. 21, 2009, H033909) [nonpub. opn].
In March 2009, father moved to remove trial counsel, contending that counsel was refusing to present evidence of, or challenge unfair treatment and actions by the social worker. Father also complained that counsel failed to request changes to orders or challenge unfair orders. After an in camera hearing where the court heard from both father and father’s counsel, the court denied father’s request pursuant to Marsden, supra 2 Cal.3d 118.
Also in March, the Santa Clara Department of Children’s and Family Services filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 requesting that father’s once per month visitation with the children be terminated. At the time the petition was filed and heard, father was incarcerated, the children were living out of county and were suffering from attachment issues. Visits at the jail would be “window only” visits and would require the children to spend the night in San Jose. In its report, the Department concluded that because of the children’s history of abandonment, father’s previous inconsistent visitation, and the fragility of the current placement, it would be detrimental to the emotional well-being of the children to continue visitation. Minors’ counsel stated that the children did not currently wish to visit their father, but they wanted to have the option in the future if things improved.
On April 30, 2009, the juvenile court heard the matter which was submitted on the report and arguments. The court granted the petition and terminated visitation for the time being, finding that visitation would be detrimental to the physical and emotional well-being of the children. The court allowed father to send letters and cards to the children and stated that it would revisit the issue of father’s visitation at the interim review hearing on December 3, 2009. Father timely appealed from both the order denying his Marsden motion and the order terminating visitation.
On June 29, 2009, this court ordered that the appeals be considered together for the purposes of briefing, oral argument and decision.
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 acknowledges that this court has no duty to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, but requests 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 July 13, 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.
In a letter dated, August 18, 2009, the respondent asks us to dismiss the appeals. 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.