In re A.W. CA5

Filed 9/24/25 In re A.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F089478 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD146006-00, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD146007-00)

v. OPINION B.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Susan M. Gill, Judge. Nicholas J. Mazanec, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. B.W., in propria persona, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Ellison, J.† † Retired judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

B.W. (mother) is the mother of nearly nine-year-old Z.W. (daughter) and 10-year-old A.W. (son) (collectively, the children). Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a dispositional hearing which resulted in her being denied reunification services and the children being placed into a permanent plan of long-term foster care with a relative. 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 brief 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 arguing: (1) the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction because there was an outstanding family law case; (2) the dependency petition was not filed within 48 hours of the children being taken into protective custody and she did not have proper notice of the detention hearing; (3) there is insufficient evidence to support removal; and (4) errors were made under the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). We conclude mother failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose at the hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2024, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) filed a dependency petition alleging the children came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivision (g) (no provision of support), as their father, P.W. (father), had passed away and immediate family was unwilling or unable to care for them, and section 300, subdivision (j) (abuse of sibling), based on two prior dependency