Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RA08382582
Sepulveda, J
Robert B. (Father) filed this appeal from a judgment terminating his parental rights to his biological daughter, Robin R. The trial court determined that it was in the minor’s best interest to free her for a stepparent adoption under Family Code, sections 7822 and 8604. On June 26, 2009, Father’s 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 concluded that there were no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Accordingly, she did not file an opening brief. Father was given 30 days to send a letter informing the court of any issues he felt should be raised on appeal. Father wrote to the court complaining that he had been unable to afford an attorney in a previous proceeding involving his daughter, resulting in unfairness.
Although this court has discretion under In re Sade C. to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues for briefing, we decline to do so here. The trial court’s judgment is presumed correct. It is up to appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.) If the appellant fails to do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (Ibid.) We decline to proceed to consider the merits of the trial court’s rulings.
Father’s letter to this court concerns claims that it was unfair that he was not represented by counsel in a prior separate action. The trial court in this matter appointed counsel when Father first requested an attorney after the adoption petition was filed. Accordingly, no arguable issues regarding Father’s right to counsel appears in the record. Apart from a general protest against the adoption system, Father’s letter does not provide any reasoned argument or authority showing that any of the trial court’s procedural or substantive rulings, as to matters properly within the scope of this appeal, constituted reversible error.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: Ruvolo, P. J. Rivera, J.