Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. J517701, Carol Isackson, Judge.
McDONALD, J.
Alexandra J. appeals findings and orders entered at a permanency plan and selection hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
On July 13, 2011, the clerk of this court received a letter from Alexandra and forwarded it to her counsel. On July 19 counsel filed a letter again asking this court to independently review the record and allow counsel to file a brief if the court finds that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception is an arguable issue. Counsel attached to her letter as Appendix A an e-mail to her from Alexandra.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held that independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny counsel's request to order counsel to brief any arguable issue.
In In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844, the California Supreme Court held that in juvenile dependency cases "the Court of Appeal has the discretion to permit the parent to personally file a brief and must do so only upon a showing of good cause that an arguable issue does, in fact, exist." Counsel does not state in her brief or letter that an arguable issue in fact exists, and thus does not make a showing of good cause as required under In re Phoenix H. In her e-mail to counsel, Alexandra asserts she did not know Sophia M. was removed from her custody, the juvenile court should have imposed a lesser permanent plan than adoption and the social worker had a conflict of interest because she was a friend of the prospective adoptive parents.
"Once appointed counsel for an indigent parent has concluded there are no arguable issues, 'the chance of error is negligible'...." (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844, quoting In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 990-991.) Out of an abundance of caution, we independently reviewed the record to confirm there is not good cause that an arguable issue exists. On the record before us, we find nothing to indicate an arguable issue exists. Therefore we deny counsel's request to provide her client with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. (In re Phoenix H., at p. 844.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., BENKE, J.