From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re C.A.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Jan 23, 2017
2d Juv. No. B278344 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2017)

Opinion

2d Juv. No. B278344

01-23-2017

In re C.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.G., Defendant and Appellant.

Deborah Dentler, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. 1435491)
(Santa Barbara County)

J.G. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, C.A. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)

Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------

We appointed counsel to represent Mother on appeal. On December 14, 2016, counsel filed an opening brief under In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. Counsel found no arguable issues and asked that we exercise our discretion to allow Mother to personally file a supplemental brief. We notified Mother that she had 30 days within which to submit any contentions she wished us to consider, and that her failure to do so would result in the dismissal of her appeal as abandoned.

Mother filed a supplemental letter on December 28, 2016, in which she raises the following issues for our consideration: (1) she contests the court's consideration of two prior sustained juvenile petitions for abuse and neglect of C.A.'s half siblings; (2) she disputes certain facts in the police report and another unspecified report; and (3) she expresses her desire to reunify with C.A. and states that she had completed all mental health checkups, was participating in child abuse classes, and had found an apartment, a job, and a car. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Police officers found Mother and 15-month-old C.A. outside on a cold night. C.A. was not wearing proper clothing, and her body was blue. She was suffering from hypothermia, severe malnourishment, and dehydration. She had to be placed in a pediatric intensive care unit. The officers searched Mother's home, which lacked adequate food, clothing, and baby supplies. The house was unsanitary.

The juvenile court had previously sustained two juvenile dependency petitions under section 300, subdivision (b) for child abuse and neglect of C.A.'s two half siblings.

The Santa Barbara Department of Social Services filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (e), (g), (i), and (j). At the combined jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the court found all the allegations of the petition true and declared C.A. a dependent of the court. It denied reunification services to Mother. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(5), (6), (10) & (11).)

The section 366.26 report and addendum state that C.A. was progressing developmentally, physically, and emotionally, and that her foster parents had bonded with her and wanted to adopt her. The court found C.A. adoptable, terminated Mother's parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan.

DISCUSSION

If the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a dependent child is adoptable, "[a]doption must be selected as the permanent plan . . . and parental rights terminated unless the court finds 'a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.'" (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).)

Mother does not identify any such "compelling reasons," nor does she raise any arguable issues. The record supports the juvenile court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J. We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.

Arthur A. Garcia, Judge


Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

Deborah Dentler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Summaries of

In re C.A.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Jan 23, 2017
2d Juv. No. B278344 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2017)
Case details for

In re C.A.

Case Details

Full title:In re C.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA BARBARA…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Jan 23, 2017

Citations

2d Juv. No. B278344 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2017)