Opinion
B327592 B332218
07-23-2024
In re G.U. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. S.U., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. 20CCJP01945B, C Charles Q. Clay, III, Judge. Appeals dismissed.
David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
STRATTON, P. J.
These are consolidated appeals by Mother S.U. subject to the procedures set out in In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. On August 2, 2022, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare &Institutions Code section 300 alleging that mother's two sons were at risk of harm due to, among other things, Mother's failure to protect them from her male companion Justin H., a current substance abuser, by allowing him unlimited access to the children. The children were detained on August 4, 2022, and released to Mother under conditions. However, three weeks later on August 24, 2022, the Department filed a request for removal of the minors from Mother, alleging Mother had a physically violent altercation with maternal aunt and was continuing her relationship with Anthony G., against whom mother had obtained a domestic violence restraining order. The juvenile court granted the request. On August 25, 2022, the children were formally removed from Mother.
On December 14, 2022, the juvenile court sustained the petition as to Mother on the failure to protect allegation. On February 10, 2023, the juvenile court adjudged the children dependents of the court, removed them from Mother, placed them with their respective fathers, ordered monitored visitation and family enhancement services for Mother, and ordered family maintenance services for each father. Mother filed her first notice of appeal from these findings and orders.
On August 10, 2023, Mother requested that the children be returned to her custody or, alternatively, that they be permitted unmonitored overnight visits with her. On August 11, 2023, the juvenile court denied the petition finding Mother had failed to show new evidence or changed circumstances. After hearings on August 11 and 24, 2023, at which Mother testified, the juvenile court awarded each father sole legal and sole physical custody of his respective child with monitored bi-weekly visitation by Mother for a minimum two hours per visit.
The juvenile court eventually terminated jurisdiction with custody orders in favor of the fathers. In doing so, the court found Mother had not completed her case plan; neither father was offending; mother's testimony was not credible and "at odds with the great weight of the evidence"; and joint physical custody was not feasible because Mother had moved in the interim to Modesto and one of the boys was entering kindergarten. Mother's second appeal followed. On May 8, 2024, we granted Mother's request to consolidate the two appeals.
On June 5, 2024, counsel for Mother filed a no issue brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. That same day we ordered counsel to notify Mother that a no issue brief had been filed on her behalf and she was invited to file a supplemental letter setting forth any issues she believes should be reviewed by this court. Counsel has advised us that he so notified Mother.
On June 27, 2024, Mother filed a supplemental letter, which was a list of her issues on appeal: "Unfair trial"; "Biased judge"; "There was evidence that I submitted that was never seen in court as well as videos and recordings of phone calls proving I'm credible"; "That [DCFS] was coercing my children during video chats and visits"; "I was told I would be sent text messages and phone calls as well as emails of when I needed to [d]rug [t]est, but I was never told or given the chance to [d]rug [t]est even when I stated that I would pay for the [d]rug [t]est. There is text and email proof"; "Caseworkers were biased"; "Never given a chance to defend myself"; "The lawyer I hired was never given a chance to defend me as well"; "Case built off lies and false information"; "I have not been allowed to see my kids in over a year"; "Both fathers have cut complete contact with me and I have not been allowed to speak to my children or video chat with them"; "Fathers do not follow the custody order"; "I raised my children on my own without either father"; "[K.G.] gave up his parental rights"; "[V.] lost his parental rights in family court with the same lies that were used in [DCFS] court they were proven to be lies in family court. That is why he lost custody and only had visitation on every other weekend"; 'There is evidence that foster parents gave a different statement than the statements that were provided in court on their behalf"; "There are text message evidence of conversations between foster parents and [s]ocial [w]orker keeping me out of case information"; "Visitations were cancelled because of [DCFS] and fathers"; "Children were brought with bruises and clothes that were too small"; "Was told by [DCFS] they would find a lab near me to do drug test and they never did."
This court presumes a trial court judgment is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Appellant bears the burden of establishing error. Where appellant does not present good cause to find arguable error, we may dismiss the appeal of a juvenile court's orders. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Unlike in a criminal case, we have no duty to conduct an independent review of the record in a dependency case. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841-843.)
Mother's list has presented no good cause that an arguable issue exists.
DISPOSITION
The appeals are dismissed.
We concur: WILEY, J., VIRAMONTES, J.