Opinion
A132863
02-06-2012
In re S.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CYNTHIA S. Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. JD103345)
Cynthia S. (Mother) filed this appeal from orders of the San Francisco Juvenile Court limiting her educational rights and appointing surrogate parents for educational purposes for her three minor children, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.1, subdivision (e). The orders were entered on July 26, 2011, during an on-going dependency proceeding for the children. On December 15, 2011, Mother's appointed appellate counsel filed a no issues statement in accordance with In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, stating that he had thoroughly reviewed the record and concluded there were no arguable issues to raise on appeal in connection with these orders. Accordingly, counsel did not file an opening brief. The no issues statement filed by counsel contains a thorough 7-page statement of the case and the facts. Counsel wrote to appellant at her last known address, advising her that a no issues statement would be filed and mailing her the appellate record and a brief description of the appellate process, and telling her that she could file a letter with this court suggesting possible trial errors that the court should review. By letter dated December 16, 2011, we also informed Mother that she had 30 days within which to file a letter setting forth issues that she believed should be reviewed on appeal. (See In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 [appellate court has discretion to permit parent to personally file brief, and must do so only upon a showing of good cause that an arguable issue of fact exists].)
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated. This appeal is authorized by section 395.
Mother filed a letter with this court on January 13, 2012. In the letter Mother states her belief "that the court should order Mr. Free to write an opening brief on my behalf." She attaches to her letter her declaration opposing the motion in the trial court and the memorandum of points and authorities submitted by her trial lawyer to the court below in connection with her opposition to the motion for an educational surrogate. In her letter to this court, she states, "There was no evidence that I had not met my duties on my children's behalf or that surrogate parents would be more successful."
Although we have discretion under In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues for briefing, we decline to do so here. The trial court's judgment is presumed correct. It is up to appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. (Id. at p. 994.) If the appellant fails to do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (Ibid.) Incorporation by reference of documents and factual arguments made in a trial court brief does not satisfy this requirement. (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2010) ¶¶ 9:30 to 9:30.1, pp. 9-9 to 9-10 ["it is entirely inappropriate for an appellate brief to incorporate by reference documents and arguments from the proceedings below"].) Mother's letter provides no reasoned argument regarding any claim of reversible error or other defect in the juvenile court proceedings. (In re Sade C., at p. 994.) Consequently, we need not proceed to the merits of the court's order.
DISPOSITION
Mother's appeal is dismissed.
___________
Kline, P.J.
We concur:
___________
Haerle, J.
___________
Lambden, J.