Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK34867. Margaret Henry, Judge.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant K.A.
Nancy O. Flores, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.M.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Frank J. DaVanzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for Minors.
DOI TODD, J.
Appellant K.A. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights as to the minor P.M. and appellant T.M. (Father) appeals from the order terminating his parental rights as to the minor K.M. Under In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, we dismiss the appeals.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
P.M., born in April 1996, and her siblings first came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in 1998 when they were found to be without proper supervision. K.M. came to the Department’s attention when Mother tested positive for amphetamines at K.M.’s birth in September 2004. More recently, in an unpublished decision filed on January 22, 2008, we affirmed the denial of Mother’s February 2007 Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking modification of the order setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 on the ground that Mother neither established changed circumstances nor demonstrated that a change of order was in the children’s best interest. (In re Kristopher M., No. B198048, filed Jan. 22, 2008.)
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Thereafter, the juvenile court set a permanency planning hearing for P.M. and K.M. in accordance with section 366.26; Mother filed a second section 388 petition and Father filed his own section 388 petition as well. On January 18, 2008, the juvenile court denied the section 388 petitions and terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as to K.M. Father appealed from the order terminating his parental rights as to K.M.
By February 2008 P.M. was residing with her prospective adoptive parents, and on April 24, 2008 the juvenile court held a permanency planning hearing at which Mother testified. Following argument by counsel, the juvenile court made all requisite findings and terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as to P.M. Mother filed a notice of appeal the same day.
On June 16, 2008, Mother’s appointed counsel advised this court in writing that after reviewing the record and researching potential issues, she was unable to file an opening brief on the merits on Mother’s behalf. On June 19, 2008, Father’s appointed counsel submitted a letter to this court to the same effect. On June 16 and June 19, 2008, we notified Mother and Father respectively that they had 30 days within which to submit by letter or brief any arguments or contentions they wished this court to consider. Only Mother filed a letter on September 15, 2008, which requested that the court reinstate her parental rights.
DISCUSSION
“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 court’s discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that event, it may order dismissal. [Citation.] Such a result is appropriate here. With no error or other defect claimed against the orders appealed from, [we are] 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. [Citation.]” (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994, fn. omitted.)
Having reviewed Mother’s letter, we conclude that she raises no issue cognizable on appeal. Her letter outlines her visits with P.M. both prior to incarceration and during incarceration through her participation in the Family Foundations Program. The letter does not provide any reasoned argument or authority showing that any of the juvenile court’s procedural or substantive rulings, as to matters properly within the scope of this appeal, constituted reversible error. Having provided no argument or authority to this court, Father, likewise, has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Pursuant to In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at page 994, we deem Mother’s and Father’s appeals as having been implicitly abandoned and we therefore dismiss the appeals.
DISPOSITION
The appeals filed March 20, 2008 and April 24, 2008 are dismissed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.