Opinion
A160549
06-30-2021
In re J.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. CONTRA COSTA CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.G. AND R.R., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1800636
BROWN, J.
1
On July 6, 2020, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendants D.G. (mother) and R.R. (father) with respect to their shared son, J.S., and ordered adoption as J.S.'s permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) After filing notices of appeal, counsel for both mother and father filed no-issue statements pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 and In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. By separate communications, we notified mother and father that their respective counsel had filed briefs indicating there were no arguable issues on appeal, and we invited them to file supplemental letters setting forth any issues they believed should be reviewed by this court. Father filed a letter asking to be given “another chance, ” but identifying no error by the juvenile court. Mother did not file a supplemental letter.
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, fn. 8.) It is therefore an appellant's burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and to present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
While we appreciate father's statement that he loves his son and that it would be a “dream come true” to be with J.S. again, we must conclude that neither parent has made a showing that there is an arguable issue that would merit further briefing with respect to the juvenile court order on appeal. Under such circumstances, dismissal is appropriate. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 844, 846.)
DISPOSITION
Because no claim of error or other defect has been raised in this matter, the appeals are dismissed as aband oned. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 844-846; In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
WE CONCUR: POLLAK, P. J. STREETER, J.