Opinion
C095945
01-25-2023
In re J.B., Law. a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court v. T.B., Defendant and Appellant. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. JD240571)
McADAM (SAMUEL T.), J. [*]
Appellant T.B. (father) is the father of the minor J.B. Father appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption. (Welf. &Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) However, father appears to take issue with earlier findings made by the juvenile court at the detention, jurisdiction, and disposition hearings, from which the time to appeal has long since passed. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.
According to father, the minor was conceived via surrogate.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Father has a significant history of mental illness and child welfare involvement across multiple states. Prior to the initiation of these dependency proceedings, father withdrew the minor from school, kept him largely in isolation, and fled multiple jurisdictions with the minor to avoid intervention by child welfare agencies. The Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adults Services (the Department) was finally able to intervene when, in May 2020, father was hospitalized after falling at home. While in the hospital, father presented as paranoid and unwilling or unable to acknowledge his mental health issues. The minor, then 12 years old, was detained and placed in the home of a resource family.
The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over the minor, removed the child from father's custody, and ordered the Department to provide reunification services and visitation to father. However, over the course of the next 14 months, father failed to participate regularly or make substantive progress in his court-ordered reunification services and failed to maintain consistent contact with the minor. On the other hand, the minor flourished in the care of his resource family with whom he had resided since removal from father's custody. In July 2021, the court terminated father's services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.
At the section 366.26 hearing, the minor confirmed both his agreement with the Department's recommendation to terminate parental rights and his desire for adoption as the permanent plan. Father objected to termination of his parental rights and requested that the juvenile court consider guardianship instead. Father articulated to the court his thoughts and position on the matter, but neither he nor his attorney raised any of the exceptions to adoption (see § 366.26, subd. (c)), nor did he argue any basis for imposition of a guardianship. The court terminated parental rights and ordered adoption as the permanent plan.
DISCUSSION
A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct, and it is "appellant's burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error." (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) As the reviewing court, we will not perform an independent, unassisted review of the record in search of errors or grounds to support the judgment. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522.)
"To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citation.]" (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) With respect to the citations to the record, the appellant must "[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Points raised but not in compliance with these requirements results are deemed without merit and forfeited on appeal. (In re S.C., at p. 408; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) The foregoing rules apply to all litigants, including those who represent themselves on appeal. (McComber v. Wells, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 523.) Father's appellate brief fails to abide by these rules in several material respects.
Further undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
First, father's brief fails to provide a summary of the significant facts relevant to his claim. Instead, he provides a vague description of facts and allegations purportedly found in the dependency petition, the Department's reports, and the juvenile court's orders and attempts to rebut them by providing his own version of events, none of which is supported by citations to the appellate record. Such use of "facts" outside of the appellate record is improper. (Dodd v. Henkel (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 604, 606, fn. 1.) While father's brief does include a section entitled, "Statement Of The Case," the content is in fact just a narrative of his thoughts and opinions regarding the dependency proceedings accompanied by more rebuttal statements which are unsupported by citations to the record.
Father also fails to provide a meaningful legal analysis. He argues the order terminating his parental rights is erroneously supported by hearsay evidence and testimony rather than what he terms "real evidence," such as eyewitness testimony and proof of any wrongdoing. His argument is supported by a discussion of materials authored by an attorney with the First District Appellate Project entitled "Admission of Hearsay and Assessing Reliability in Dependency Proceedings," a document that appears to be an outline for a seminar, and which has no authoritative effect. He also relies on Englebretson v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1915) 170 Cal. 793, a case which has nothing to do with dependency and is therefore inapposite. Without a meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and without citations to facts in the record that support his claim of error, his claim is forfeited on appeal. (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.)
In any event, even assuming father's brief complied with the applicable rules, the appeal is also untimely. While the brief ostensibly challenges the juvenile court's order terminating father's parental rights, it only addresses evidence and events regarding the petition, detention, jurisdiction, and disposition and reports related thereto. The jurisdiction/disposition hearing occurred on November 13, 2020, at which time father was informed by the juvenile court of his appeal rights. Father had the right to appeal the court's dispositional order but did not do so.
Instead, he appealed from the court's order terminating parental rights 16 months later. But for exceptions not applicable here, "notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed." (Rule 8.406(a)(1).) Appellate jurisdiction depends upon a timely notice of appeal. (Adoption of Reed H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 76, 82; In re Elizabeth G. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1327, 1331.) Father filed his notice of appeal on March 29, 2022, long after the jurisdiction/disposition judgment became final.
An appeal from the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not challenge prior orders for which the statutory time for filing an appeal has passed. (In re Elizabeth G., at p. 1331.) Because father failed to timely appeal from the disposition order, he is foreclosed from raising the issue now on appeal from the order terminating his parental rights. (Ibid.) The appeal is untimely and must therefore be dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: HULL, Acting P. J., RENNER, J.
[*] Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.