Opinion
F063283
12-28-2011
In re A.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GUADALUPE A., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. Nos. JJV050192H, JJV050192J, JJV050192K, JJV050192L, JJV050192M)
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Dawson, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
Gregory M. Chappel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Guadalupe A. (mother) appealed from July 2011 orders terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her five children. After reviewing the entire record, mother's court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother's behalf. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
--------
Mother has now submitted a letter in which she claims she deserves a second chance and her children need her as much as she needs them. Mother's letter otherwise neither addresses the termination proceedings nor sets forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing does exist. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.)
At most, mother describes a March 17, 2011, hearing at which the juvenile court removed the children from her custody. She claims this was a "shock" to her because she was doing everything to keep the children with her. To the extent mother seeks to raise the children's removal as an arguable issue of reversible error, she has forfeited her argument. When the court removed the children from mother's custody in March, it also denied mother reunification services and set the July 2011 section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the children. Once it made its setting order, the court gave mother notice of her right to review of the court's decision by extraordinary writ petition in this court.
Mother, however, did not file a petition for extraordinary writ. Having failed to do so, she forfeited any complaint she might have had regarding the juvenile court's decision to remove the children from her custody. (§ 366.26, subd. (l).) Failure to file an extraordinary writ petition to substantively address specific issues raised shall preclude subsequent review by appeal of the findings and orders made at a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(2).)
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.) Here, mother does not raise any claim of error or other defect against the termination order from which she appealed.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.