From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re L.R.

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Mar 14, 2008
No. F054376 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008)

Opinion


In re L.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRENDA H., Defendant and Appellant. F054376 California Court of Appeal, Fifth District March 14, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.), Super. Ct. No. 04CEJ300037

Mario de Solenni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT

Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.

Brenda H. appeals from an order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to two of her sons, L.R. and P.R. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated February 6, 2008, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952). By order dated February 14, 2008, we extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.

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

Appellant has filed such a letter brief with this court. In it, she describes her efforts to, as she puts it, improve her lifestyle. She mentions “required courses” she completed between December 2004 and May 2007, her continuing mental health therapy, and her current enrollment in a local community college. She further speaks of her remorse and her feeling that “a great misunderstanding” regarding the abuse led to the termination of her parental rights. Finally, she disagrees with a bonding assessment which concluded she did not share a parent/child relationship with her sons. Having reviewed the appellate record as summarized below, we conclude appellant’s remarks do not amount to claims that the juvenile court committed an error affecting the outcome of this case (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994) and will affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

In May 2004, the Fresno County Superior Court adjudged infant L.R. a dependent child, removed him from parental custody, and ordered reunification services for appellant. Appellant’s substance abuse and neglect two months earlier brought L.R. to the court’s attention. Over the following 18 months, appellant complied with her case plan such that the court in November 2005 returned L.R. to his parents’ care with family maintenance services.

Unfortunately, in early October 2006, L.R. suffered a spiral fracture to his left femur. At the same time, his attending physician discovered L.R. had two fractured ribs, which were approximately two weeks old. Appellant later submitted to an allegation that L.R. suffered serious physical harm inflicted non-accidentally while in her care. The abuse to L.R. resulted in his removal and that of his younger brother P.R. as well as the filing of a subsequent petition in L.R.’s case and an original petition in P.R.’s case alleging the abuse and the risk of further harm.

In February 2007, the court found the allegations of the subsequent and original petitions true. It also suspended parent/child visitation. The following May, the court terminated services in the case of L.R., denied services as to P.R., and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the two boys. It further ordered a bonding study between the children and their parents.

Thereafter, respondent Fresno County Department of Children and Family Services prepared an adoption assessment in which it recommended the court find the children likely to be adopted, select adoption as the permanent plan, and terminate parental rights. The bonding study concluded the children did not have a parent/child relationship with appellant and their father nor a substantial emotional attachment to them such that either child would be greatly harmed if the parental relationship were terminated.

Following a contested hearing, the court found the children adoptable and terminated parental rights.

DISCUSSION

At the section 366.26 hearing, the court was required to terminate parental rights if it could find the children were adoptable, unless it also found a compelling reason to conclude termination would be detrimental to the children. (§ 366.26; In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) Appellant’s numerous efforts to improve herself and her remorse were not issues that the court was required or even permitted to consider in selecting a permanent plan for appellant’s sons. Once reunification services are terminated or denied, the court’s focus shifts to the needs of the children for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the children are likely to be adopted, adoption is the norm. Thus, while we might commend appellant on her efforts and remorse, they were legally irrelevant at the section 366.26 stage.

To the extent appellant claims “a great misunderstanding” regarding the physical harm L.R. suffered, we note it was undisputed that the harm was inflicted nonaccidentally while L.R. was in appellant’s care. In any event, we also note that the time to challenge the abuse findings has long passed. Appellant had the opportunity to seek our review of the issue once the trial court in May 2007 set the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) Although appellant filed a notice of intent to seek writ review in this court, she never pursued the matter by filing an extraordinary writ petition with this court. Thus, she has forfeited the right to dispute the trial court’s physical abuse finding on this appeal. (Ibid.)

Finally, although appellant disagrees with the bonding assessment, which concluded she did not share a parent/child relationship with her sons, it remained appellant’s burden to establish the existence of a strong relationship such that it would be detrimental to the boys to terminate it. (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809.) Even setting aside the results of the bonding study, there was no affirmative evidence that the boys would be harmed by the termination of appellant’s rights. Thus, there is no evidence to support a claim of error by the trial court.

“An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .…) Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect (see ibid.), and ... ‘present argument and authority on each point made’ (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591 ...; accord, In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 278 ...). If he does not, he may, in the court’s discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. (Berger v. Godden [(1985)] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113] at p. 1119 .…) In that event, it may order dismissal. (Ibid.) Such a result is appropriate here. With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, the Court of Appeal was presented with no reason to proceed to the merits of any unraised ‘points’—and, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. (See People v. Brigham (1979) 25 Cal.3d 283, 289 .…)” (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)

Having reviewed her letter brief and the record herein, we conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the court’s decision.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.


Summaries of

In re L.R.

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Mar 14, 2008
No. F054376 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008)
Case details for

In re L.R.

Case Details

Full title:FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 14, 2008

Citations

No. F054376 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008)