In re D.W. CA5

Filed 11/21/25 In re D.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F089810 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD144614-00, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD144613-00)

v. OPINION C.W. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Susan M. Gill, Judge. Brian Bitker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and C.W., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant C.W. Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and David W., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant David W.

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., De Santos, J. and Guerra, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellants C.W. (mother) and David W. (father) are the parents of D.W., who is the subject of this dependency case. Mother and father appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing on May 13, 2025, which resulted in their parental rights being terminated. After reviewing the juvenile court record, both mother and father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court they could find no arguable issues to raise on mother or father’s behalf. This court granted mother and father 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.).) Both mother and father filed letter briefs alleging various complaints that the juvenile court did not understand their situation or the bond they had with D.W. We conclude both mother and father failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth good cause showing any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDRUAL HISTORY Background Mother and father are the parents of D.W., who was born in 2021 and is the subject of this appeal. Mother has two other children: O.I., whose father is Oscar I.; and H.M., whose father is Kirk M. Neither O.I. nor H.M. are the subjects of this appeal; and neither of their fathers is a party to this appeal. In September 2013, prior to D.W.’s birth, H.M. was placed into protective custody when mother threatened to harm him and