In re J.J. CA5

Filed 2/7/25 In re J.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.J. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F088343 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD145637-00, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD145638-00)

v. OPINION M.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Susan M. Gill, Judge. Paul A. Swiller, 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, 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- Appellant M.J. (mother) is the mother of the now seven-year-old Je.J. and five-year-old Ja.J. (collectively, the children), who are the subjects of this dependency case. Mother appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a dispositional hearing on June 17, 2024, which resulted in the children being placed in foster care and family reunification services being ordered for the children’s legal guardian, K.J. (guardian). After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother 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.).) Mother filed a letter brief alleging her counsel represented her poorly and she wanted to be provided family reunification services. She does not, however, allege the juvenile court erred when it failed to provide her family reunification services. We conclude mother failed to address the dispositional hearing or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the disposition hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The guardian, who is the children’s paternal great-grandmother, obtained legal guardianship of the children in March 2020. In July 2023, the guardian allowed the children to move from Utah to California in order to live with the parents. Mother went to jail in November 2023, and the guardian moved into the home of the parents and children. The guardian witnessed fighting between the parents, and she suspected substance abuse by father. However, she allowed the parents to continue living with the children. On March 7, 2024, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) filed petitions alleging the children were described by Welfare and Institutions Code