In re A.B. CA5

Filed 1/7/25 In re A.B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re A.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F088256 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD142946-00, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD142947-00, JD142948-00)

v. OPINION D.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Susan M. Gill, Judge. Brian Bitker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Elizabeth M. Giesick, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Smith, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

-ooOoo- Father D.B. (father) appeals the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26. Following a review of the entire record, father’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he found no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. Counsel requested, and this court granted, leave for father to personally file a letter presenting a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did in fact exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) While father submitted a letter raising various issues, his letter failed to establish good cause or show the existence of any arguable issue of reversible error arising from the section 366.26 hearing. (Id. at p. 844.) Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Father, along with S.S. (mother),2 is the biological parent of A.B., K.B., and N.B., who are the only minors involved in this matter. Although father did not seek a writ petition to challenge the termination of reunification services earlier in the process, thereby waiving his challenge to a variety of issues, we provide a summary of proceedings leading up to the termination of his parental rights. Detention On January 19, 2022, three separate dependency petitions were filed by the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) seeking the detention of all three minors, alleging there was a substantial risk they would suffer serious physical harm or illness due to the willful or negligent failure of father and mother to protect them as required under section 300. The petitions were filed after law enforcement responded to a report and found the family home to be “unlivable” and the minors to be dirty and