Opinion
A112773
12-5-2006
In re REBEKAH L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DIANA L., Defendant and Appellant.
Diana L. (Mother) filed this appeal from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, Rebekah L. On May 3, 2006, Mothers appointed appellate counsel filed a no issues statement in accordance with In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, stating that she had thoroughly reviewed the record and had not found any arguable issues to raise on appeal.
Mother was then advised by the clerk of this court, by letter dated May 5, 2006, that she could "file a letter stating issues you feel should be reviewed on appeal," and that if she did not do so by June 5, 2006, her appeal would be dismissed. The clerks letter also advised appellant that if she did file a letter, it would "be forwarded to the Court for determination as to whether your attorney should be directed to brief any or all issues outlined in your letter," and that if the Court decided "to direct your attorney to provide further briefing, a letter will issue from this Court," but if not, the appeal would be dismissed.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time, on July 5, 2006, Mother filed a document, which we have treated as a letter brief, consisting of a lengthy argument section and eight exhibits. Only one of the exhibits (the transcript of a hearing regarding substitution of Mothers appointed counsel) can be identified as having been part of the record in the trial court.
Respondent filed a brief in response on September 12, 2006, urging this court to consider the appeal implicitly abandoned, and to dismiss it promptly. On October 31, 2006, the clerk of this court sent the parties a letter informing them that oral argument would be deemed waived unless a request for oral argument was received by November 13, 2006. On that date, appellant submitted a letter requesting oral argument.
DISCUSSION
The juvenile courts decision is presumed correct unless appellant can affirmatively establish that the trial court committed prejudicial error. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) "An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, [s]he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and `present argument and authority on each point made [citations]. If [s]he does not, [s]he may, in the courts discretion, be deemed to have abandoned [her] 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 order[] in question. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 994.)
Having reviewed Mothers letter brief, we conclude appellant raises no arguable issue regarding the order terminating her parental rights as to Rebekah. Mothers letter brief makes numerous factual statements, but none of them is supported by any reference to the trial court record. Moreover, apart from a general protest against the dependency system and its interactions with Mothers family, the letter brief does not provide any reasoned argument or authority showing that any of the trial courts procedural or substantive rulings, as to matters properly within the scope of this appeal, constituted reversible error.
Having found no cognizable claim of trial court error in Mothers letter brief, we conclude Mother has implicitly abandoned her appeal. Accordingly, as permitted by In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, we shall dismiss it.
ORDER
The clerks notice permitting the parties to request oral argument is VACATED. Appellants request for oral argument is DENIED. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and this decision is final immediately.
We Concur:
Reardon, J.
Rivera, J.