Opinion
F076425
05-23-2018
In re RAYMOND H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUSTIN H., Defendant and Appellant.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JJV070051A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Hugo J. Loza, Judge. Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and, Meehan J.
-ooOoo-
Justin H. is the biological father of one-year-old Raymond H. On August 15, 2017, the juvenile court terminated Justin's parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and he appealed. After reviewing the juvenile court record, Justin's court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on Justin's behalf. This court granted Justin leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Justin submitted a letter in which he acknowledges that he cannot identify any errors committed on the part of the juvenile court. He also acknowledges that he cannot raise Raymond at this time. Justin merely seeks to explain his circumstances.
We conclude Justin failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
Newborn Raymond was removed from the custody of his mother B.M. (mother) in September 2016 by the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) after he tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. Mother admitted using methamphetamine during her pregnancy and in the days before delivery and having untreated mental health problems. She identified Justin as the father of her baby. She and Justin were not married. The agency placed Raymond in foster care.
Justin disclosed he was a recovering addict and knew mother was using drugs during her pregnancy because he allowed her to stay in his home.
The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Raymond in October 2016 and ordered mother to participate in reunification services. The court did not order services for Justin because he was an alleged father when the court issued its dispositional orders. The court set the six-month review hearing for March 2017.
In March 2017, Justin and mother, in custody, appeared for the six-month review hearing. The juvenile court found Justin to be Raymond's biological father based on paternity test results and granted the agency discretion to arrange supervised visits for him with Raymond. The court also set a contested hearing in April 2017 on the agency's recommendation to terminate mother's reunification services.
In the meantime, Justin requested visitation but tested positive for methamphetamine several times in March and in early April 2017. Consequently, the agency declined to arrange visitation.
On April 6, 2017, following the contested six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated mother's reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. Justin did not appear at the hearing. Neither parent challenged the court's setting order by extraordinary writ petition.
Prior to the section 366.26 hearing, mother filed a modification petition under section 388, seeking reinstatement of reunification services. The court set a hearing on her petition on the date scheduled for the section 366.26 hearing.
On August 15, 2017, the juvenile court conducted a combined hearing under sections 388 and 366.26. Justin did not appear at the hearing, having entered residential substance abuse treatment several weeks before. Following mother's testimony, the court denied her section 388 petition, finding that reunification was not in Raymond's best interest. The court found Raymond was likely to be adopted and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
At a termination hearing, the juvenile court's focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).)
Justin does not challenge the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights. Instead, he informs this court of his recovery efforts and explains why he did not visit Raymond or attend the court hearing. In the absence of a good cause showing that an arguable issue exists on the record, we must dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.