In re Angelica M. CA5

Filed 8/29/13 In re Angelica M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ANGELICA M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F067060 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. JP000226A, Plaintiff and Respondent, JP000226B)

v. OPINION N.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Merced County. John D. Kirihara, Judge. Seth F. Gorman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. James N. Fincher, County Counsel, and Sheri L. Damon, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

N.M. (mother) appealed from a 2013 order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 to her four-year-old daughter, Angelica, and three-year-old son, Eduardo (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.) Mother has since submitted a letter in which she disputes certain facts from an earlier stage of the dependency proceedings. Her 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.) As discussed below, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of any arguable issue. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY Domestic violence and mother’s suspected mental health problems brought then one-year-old Angelica and newborn Eduardo to the juvenile court’s attention in the spring of 2010. In May of that year, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children but ordered them returned to parental custody under a plan of family maintenance. The plan included a parenting education program, anger management and/or domestic violence program, and a mental health evaluation for mother. By January 2011, family maintenance proved ineffective in protecting the children, as the parents admittedly argued with and physically fought one another while they lived together with the children. Consequently, the court removed the children from parental custody and ordered reunification services for both parents.