Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. DP001839
RUSHING, P.J.
Appellant S.V., mother of L.A., appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Ten month old L.A. was taken into custody and subsequently detained after her father punched her mother in the face causing mother to drop the child. At the time of the incident, the parents were participating in voluntary family maintenance services, but had three times prior failed to abide by a safety plan.
All further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The Santa Cruz County Human Resources Department (the Department) recommended placing the child in a foster home and offering the parents reunification services. Because of the parents’ long history of substance abuse and domestic violence, on February 22, 2008, the juvenile court sustained the petition filed pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) and ordered the child placed out of the home. The court also ordered services for the parents including supervised visits twice per week.
Despite initial progress in her case plan, by the time of the six month review hearing, the Department recommended termination of services. Mother had relapsed, had left her residential drug treatment program and had been terminated from Family Preservation Court. As a result, the juvenile court terminated services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
At the section 366.26 hearing, the Department recommended that the parent’s rights be terminated and that L.A. be freed for adoption. Mother presented no evidence but submitted the matter on the record before the court. Mother wished for post-adoption contact with the child. Finding the child adoptable, the court adopted the Department’s recommendation and terminated parental rights. 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 June 22, 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 September 4, 2009, the Department asks this court to 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.