Opinion
B323907
11-06-2023
In the Matter of M.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. JACOB M., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Michelle D. Pena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 22CCJP02692 Nichelle L. Blackwell, Commissioner. Dismissed.
Michelle D. Pena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MORI, J.
Jacob M. (father) appeals from juvenile court orders exercising jurisdiction over his children Michael M. (born September 2019) and Jacqueline M. (born March 2021) (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)), removing the children from father's custody, and awarding Maya G. (mother) a one-year restraining order against father. Father's appointed counsel filed an opening brief stating that she found no arguable issues. (See In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 843 (Phoenix H.).)
Our Supreme Court has held that when appointed counsel for an indigent parent in a dependency appeal files an opening brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal is not required to independently review the entire record for any arguable issue, as is the case in criminal appeals by indigent defendants and may instead dismiss the appeal. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 (Sade C.); accord, Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 844-845.) The indigent parent in such a case generally has no right to file his or her own brief setting forth issues for review, "unless the parent can establish good cause by showing that an arguable issue does, in fact, exist." (Phoenix H., supra, at p. 845.) "The Court of Appeal is not required to permit the parent to pursue an appeal that has no arguable merit." (Ibid.)
Following appointed counsel's filing of a no-merit brief in this case, we ordered counsel to send the appellate record and a copy of her brief to father. By way of supplemental brief lodged with this court, father contends the juvenile court violated the "code of judicial ethics," warranting reversal of the jurisdiction/disposition and permanent restraining orders or dismissal of the underlying action.
Having reviewed the supplemental brief and attachments, we find father has not made a showing of good cause that an arguable issue exists. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 846.) Though father makes a claim of error by way of an allegation that the juvenile court violated the code of ethics, he furnishes no argument with supporting legal authorities or record citations on this purported claim of error. (See Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994 [parents must "'present argument and authority on each point made'"].) Nor does father show that this claim of error, assuming it was true, constitutes a basis for reversing the underlying orders or dismissing the underlying action. (See Doan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 11 Cal.4th 294, 312 [the California Code of Judicial Conduct, while reflecting a consensus regarding appropriate behavior, "does 'not have the force of law or regulation'"].) Our review of the challenged orders confirms counsel's determination that no arguable issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The letter brief filed by father shall be marked as received but not filed. The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: CURREY, P. J., ZUKIN, J.