Opinion
F075884
01-18-2018
In re J.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS G., Defendant and Appellant.
Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 16CEJ30090-1, 16CEJ30090-2, 16CEJ30090-3, 16CEJ30090-4, 16CEJ30090-5)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary Green, Judge. Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Jesus G. (father) appealed from the juvenile court's orders terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) as to his now nine-year-old daughter, J.R.G., and four sons, J.V.G., Jesse, Julian and Jeremy, eight-, seven-, six-, five- and four-years old, respectively (collectively the children). After reviewing the juvenile court record, father's court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father's behalf. This court granted father leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Father filed a letter but failed to address the termination findings or orders or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the section 366.26 hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In April 2016, the Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) removed the children from their paternal grandmother. The police had been called to the house because of reports of children screaming and people using drugs in the presence of the children. The police found father in the home despite a restraining order protecting the grandmother. A paternal uncle, who was being investigated for sexually abusing J.R.G., was also in the home. The home was unsanitary and cluttered, making it difficult to walk through it. In addition, there was food on the floor, roaches crawling everywhere, and wires hanging from the ceiling. The children's mother, Vanessa, was in jail for possession of methamphetamine and a gun. She was expected to be released in May 2016. The department placed the children together in foster care.
In May 2016, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children, ordered reunification services for both parents, and set a six-month review hearing in November 2016. However, in September 2016, the department filed a modification petition (§ 388) asking the court to terminate their services for noncompliance. The court granted the petition at the six-month review hearing in December 2016, terminated reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In its reports for the section 366.26 hearing, the department recommended the juvenile court terminate parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan for the children.
Father submitted evidence at the section 366.26 hearing in May 2017 that he completed a recovering relapse program and a parenting class. He testified he was taken into custody on January 8, 2017, and had monthly visits. The children did not want to leave when visitation ended. They lingered and told father that they loved him.
The juvenile court found the children were likely to be adopted and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is appellant's burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
At a termination hearing, the juvenile court's focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B).
Father does not argue that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights. Instead, he asks the court to have mercy on him and at least grant him visitation.
We conclude, based on the letter father filed, that he failed to raise any arguable issues from the termination hearing that merit briefing and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.