Opinion
B205010
10-29-2008
In re W.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMY W., Defendant and Appellant.
Amy W., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey F. Dodds, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published
Amy W. (mother) represents herself in this appeal. She challenges the juvenile courts October 16, 2007, dispositional order regarding her son, W.W. (minor). She also challenges the juvenile courts December 14, 2007, visitation order. Mother failed to demonstrate error. We affirm.
FACTS
Mother did not provide a summary of facts. We have provided a brief statement of facts to give this appeal context.
Background
In a family court case, A.W. (father) was granted primary physical custody of the minor. Mother had visits every other weekend. She subjected the minor to numerous psychological evaluations and emergency room visits, claiming that the minor had been physically, sexually and emotionally abused by father. She made false and misleading statements to medical personnel, law enforcement and the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) regarding how father treats the minor. Her allegations were unsubstantiated.
The minor was detained.
The petition; detention hearing
The Department filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) on the minors behalf. As amended, it alleged that "contentious family law issues between the parents" placed the minor at risk of physical and emotional harm while in mothers care. At the ensuing detention hearing, the minor was detained from mother and released to fathers custody. The juvenile court suspended mothers overnight visits. She was permitted to have day visits in the presence of a Department approved monitor.
The September 5, 2007, hearing
When the parties convened for adjudication of jurisdictional issues on September 5, 2007, they discussed the terms whereby mother would enter a plea. Mothers counsel stated various terms and added that the "[c]ase [was] continued to [October 16, 2007] for disposition and court consideration of dismissal pursuant to [section 360, subdivision (b)]."
Section 360, subdivision (b) provides that even if a child is a person described by section 300, a juvenile court can decline to adjudicate the child a dependent, order that services be provided to keep the family together, and order the child placed with a parent under a social workers supervision.
Mother signed a waiver and submitted on the petition. The minor was once again ordered released to fathers custody. The Department was ordered to submit a report from mothers therapist.
The October 16, 2007, hearing
The Department reported that mothers therapist would not talk to the social worker because mother had not signed a release.
When the parties appeared for the disposition hearing on October 16, 2007, mothers counsel stated that mothers therapist was ready to provide a detailed report regarding mothers progress in therapy. The juvenile court ruled that there would be no further continuances.
The matter proceeded to trial. Following presentation of the evidence, the juvenile court removed the minor from mothers custody. He was placed in fathers custody. Mother was granted unmonitored weekday or weekend visits in Los Angeles.
The December 14, 2007, hearing
On December 14, 2007, father moved the juvenile court for an order that mothers visitation with minor occur in a therapeutic setting. The juvenile court granted the motion.
This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Mother asks us "to review the documents and evidence provided and reverse the [juvenile courts]" October 16, 2007, dispositional order. Next, she asks us to review the documents provided and reverse the December 14, 2007, order. Based on the absence of proper legal argument, we decline.
Although mother is representing herself on appeal and may have limited understanding of the law, she is not entitled to special consideration. "[A] party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. [Citations.] `[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.] [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. [Citations.]" (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Moreover, an appellate court need not "develop an appellants argument." (Alvarez v. Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1206, fn. 11.)
We note that mothers five-page opening brief violates California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a) because it does not contain a table of contents and authorities, points are not stated under headings, and her argument is not supported by legal citations. She often adverts to facts without record citations. Her opening brief does not contain a summary of significant facts.
More importantly, mother did not identify any legal principles that require reversal of the orders. Nor did mother explain what standard of review we should employ. An appellate court can deem an argument waived if it is not supported by analysis or argument in the appellate briefs. (Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 366.) This rule is rooted in precedents providing that an appellant bears the burden of showing trial court error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) Due to the enumerated deficiencies in mothers opening brief, her appeal is waived.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
We concur:
BOREN, P. J.
CHAVEZ, J.