In re P.G. CA5

Filed 8/28/13 In re P.G. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

In re P.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F066947 HUMAN SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JD128565-00) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION

JENNIFER G., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Louie L. Vega, Judge. Neale Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Franson, J.

Jennifer G. (mother) appealed from a March 2013 order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to her three-year-old son, P. (child).1 After reviewing the entire record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she 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.) Mother has submitted a letter in which she contends social workers with respondent Kern County Department of Human Services (department) did not provide her with proper services. She asks this court to look into her case. Mother 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.) As discussed below, we will dismiss this appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY In the spring of 2012, mother’s drug abuse and resulting neglect of her two-year- old child brought him to the attention of the department and led to the underlying dependency proceedings. Soon after, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the child and removed him from parental custody. The court ordered family reunification services for mother, including counseling for child neglect, parenting and substance abuse, random drug testing, and visitation. As of October 2012, mother was not participating in substance abuse counseling. She also was not enrolled or participating in child neglect and parenting counseling. Further, she repeatedly failed to drug test. At best, she visited consistently and regularly with her child.