From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tulare Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. Robert D. (In re Isabella D.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 2, 2012
F063609 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)

Opinion

F063609 Super. Ct. No. JJV065014B

02-02-2012

In re ISABELLA D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT D., Defendant and Appellant.

Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION


THE COURT

Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Dawson, J.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.

Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

Robert D. (father) appealed from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to 17-month-old Isabella. After reviewing the entire record, father's court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he had found no arguable issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel requested, and this court granted, leave for father to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Father has since submitted a letter, asking us to investigate respondent Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency). He alleges that the agency failed to provide him assistance in building a relationship with his daughter and keep him informed as to the status of the child's dependency proceedings. Father does not cite any evidence from the record to support his allegations.

On review, we conclude father's letter does not amount to a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

When Isabella was approximately a month old, her mother and father were arrested on child endangerment charges. Father had been driving when first he was ejected and then Isabella's half-sibling was ejected from the vehicle as the driver's door flew open. Neither the sibling nor Isabella had the benefit of a car safety restraint. The parents did not seek medical care for the sibling even though she suffered abrasions to one leg and her face and she had swelling over one eye. The children also appeared neglected. Following their arrests, neither parent could make arrangements for the children's care.

As a result, Isabella and her sibling were detained and juvenile dependency proceedings were initiated. The parents waived their rights and submitted to the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the children (§ 300, subds. (b) & (g)). In December 2010, the juvenile court adjudged Isabella a dependent child and removed her from parental custody. It also granted both parents reunification services.

The court placed Isabella's half-sibling with her father and dismissed the proceedings as to her.
--------

Father was incarcerated until apparently sometime in January 2011, but was arrested on drug charges, among others, in February 2011. The following month he was sentenced to state prison and has since remained in custody. According to agency reports, father did not maintain contact with social workers and did not participate in court-ordered services.

The juvenile court continued Isabella's foster care placement and terminated reunification services in June 2011. The court found the agency made reasonable efforts to return the child to a safe home, but both parents failed to participate regularly and make substantial progress in court-ordered services. There was also no substantial probability that Isabella might be returned home within the next six months. The juvenile court in turn set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for Isabella. Although father received notice of his right to seek writ review of the juvenile court's ruling, he did not pursue the matter.

In advance of the permanency planning hearing, the agency reported that Isabella was likely to be adopted and recommended that the court terminate parental rights. Father attended the hearing. His attorney told the court that father loved Isabella. In addition, father would be released from prison in 100 days. He wanted the opportunity to reunite with Isabella after his release. He asked that the court not terminate his rights, but he did not claim that any statutory exception to adoption existed. The court, having found clear and convincing evidence that Isabella was likely to be adopted, 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 up to an appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant does not do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) It is not the role of this court to investigate, as father puts it, his unsupported claims. Because father does not raise any claim of error or other defect against the termination order he appeals from, we have no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. (Ibid.)

To the extent father is critical of the agency and its efforts, he also overlooks the law (§ 366.26, subd. (l)), which forecloses his complaints regarding the agency's efforts and reunification services for the first time on appeal from the order terminating parental rights. The time to raise such complaints to this court passed when father did not seek writ review of the juvenile court's June 2011 order terminating services and setting the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); In re Anthony B. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022-1023.)

Furthermore, at the termination hearing, the court's proper focus was on the child to determine whether it was likely she would be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. Once reunification services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the child's needs for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, adoption is the norm. Indeed, the court must order adoption and its necessary consequence, termination of parental rights, unless one of the specified circumstances provides a compelling reason for finding that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) Here, father offered no such compelling reason.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.


Summaries of

Tulare Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. Robert D. (In re Isabella D.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 2, 2012
F063609 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)
Case details for

Tulare Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. Robert D. (In re Isabella D.)

Case Details

Full title:In re ISABELLA D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TULARE…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 2, 2012

Citations

F063609 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2012)