Opinion
F042720.
7-29-2003
In re SARAH C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NAOMI C., Defendant and Appellant.
Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Naomi C. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her daughter, Sarah. Appellants appointed appellate counsel submitted a letter dated June 5, 2003, advising that no brief would be forthcoming (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 920 P.2d 716). By order dated June 11, 2003, and letter dated July 16, 2003, we have extended time for appellant to personally file a letter brief.
On July 25, 2003, appellant filed a supplemental brief with this court. We have carefully reviewed the brief in which she candidly admits she does not think the court was wrong in terminating her parental rights. She nevertheless asks this court to reinstate her parental rights by acknowledging her past and her personal responsibility. However, this court does not have the authority to reverse an order terminating parental rights unless appellant can establish that the trial court committed prejudicial error. Thus, while we commend appellant for her refreshing candor and willingness to take responsibility for her past conduct, we cannot grant her the relief she seeks.
"An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, 86 Cal. Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d 193 . . . .) 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, 159 Cal. Rptr. 1 . . .; accord, In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 272, 278, 268 Cal. Rptr. 83 . . .). If he does not, he may, in the courts 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, 157 Cal. Rptr. 905, 599 P.2d 100 . . . .)" (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
Having found no claim of trial court error in the supplemental brief as to matters within the scope of this appeal, we conclude appellant has abandoned the appeal from the order terminating her parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.