Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK64290.
BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
Appellants Susie C. (mother) and Manuel F. (father) appeal from the orders establishing juvenile court jurisdiction over their three daughters, Susie (born February 2006), Natalie (born December 2006), and Desiree (born November 2007), and removing the children from their custody. We dismiss the appeal.
On April 19, 2010, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 alleging that the children came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because of domestic violence and drug use by both parents and because of mother’s mental health problems. The children were detained and eventually placed with a maternal great aunt.
Mother had two prior substantiated referrals for general neglect: a 2006 referral concerning older children who were placed with their father, and a 2008 referral for the subject children. She also had a criminal history: a 1994 conviction for attempting to bring alcohol into a state prison, and a 2009 citation for driving without a license.
Mother’s neighbors described her as unstable and “crazy.” Teachers at the children’s preschool noted that mother often appeared at the school disheveled and dressed in pajamas and that she behaved erratically. During her interview with the Department’s social worker, mother behaved strangely and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. She admitted using drugs in the past, including smoking marijuana with father the previous week, and using methamphetamines with him two days before the interview. Mother said that she suffered from depression and acknowledged that she had been hospitalized in 2009 following an attempted suicide. Mother said that father went to prison for hitting her eight years ago but that he had not hit her since then.
Father denied hitting mother at any time and said he served a four-year prison sentence because of a false domestic violence allegation by mother. He had two criminal convictions but was discharged from parole in 2008 with no further criminal violations. Father admitted smoking marijuana during the preceding two days and drinking beer with mother while the children were not home. He denied using drugs in the home while the children were present.
The children’s teachers said that the children often appeared dirty and complained of being hungry. One teacher reported that Susie and Natalie had told her that father hit mother and threatened her with a gun.
The parties were ordered to mediation and subsequently reached an agreement. Both parents agreed to plead no contest to an amended petition stating that mother and father both had an unresolved history of substance abuse that periodically limited their ability to care for the children, and that mother’s emotional condition, including her problems with depression and suicidal ideation, placed the children at risk of harm. Both parents also agreed to participate in random drug testing, and mother agreed to participate in individual counseling and to continue in the care of her psychiatrist. The parties agreed to continue the dispositional hearing so that mother could undergo an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation regarding her mental state.
At the June 29, 2010 jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court advised both parents of their rights and of the consequences of pleading no contest to the allegations. Mother and father both indicated that they understood. The court then accepted the parents’ written waivers and oral no contest pleas and sustained the amended petition. The court determined that an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation was unnecessary, noting that mother was already under the care of a psychiatrist.
Mother subsequently filed a motion to set aside her no contest plea, contending that she had not made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea and that she was mistaken as to consequences of that plea.
In July 2010, the children remained placed with the maternal great aunt; however, the Department expressed concerns about the aunt and sought discretion to place them with the maternal grandfather instead. The maternal grandfather had two prior criminal convictions, but was seeking the necessary waivers that would allow the children to be placed with him. Mother had not enrolled in any programs, nor had she appeared for any drug testing. Mother visited the children regularly, and apart from some incidents when she was hostile toward the children’s caregiver or the Department’s staff, the visits were appropriate. Father had not visited the children. Although he was reportedly living with mother, the Department had been unable to contact him.
Mother attended the July 12, 2010 dispositional hearing. Father did not appear but was represented by his counsel. The juvenile court first addressed mother’s motion to withdraw her no contest plea and denied the motion. The parties then agreed to submit the matter on the basis of the previously agreed upon mediation agreement.
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were at substantial risk of harm if they remained in their parents’ care and ordered them removed from the parents’ custody. The court ordered the children to remain suitably placed, and gave the Department discretion to release them to the maternal grandfather once the appropriate waivers were obtained.
Both parents were accorded family reunification services and monitored visitation and were ordered to attend parenting classes and to provide eight consecutive clean drug tests. The juvenile court ordered mother to attend individual counseling and to follow the recommendations of her psychiatrist, including taking all prescribed medication.
Both parents appealed. We appointed separate counsel to represent mother and father in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel for each of them filed a brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, indicating an inability to find any arguable issues. On November 15 and 16, 2010, we advised father and mother, respectively, that each had 30 days in which to submit any contentions or arguments either of them wished us to consider. On December 17, 2010, we received a letter from mother in which she stated that the language in her motion to withdraw her plea was incorrect, that she signed the mediation agreement because she was told that would be the fastest way to have the children returned to her, and that she was confused and mistaken when she did so.
“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.]” (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Mother and father have established no error in the proceedings below, nor any legal basis for reversal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.