In re A.E. CA5

Filed 2/13/14 In re A.E. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, F066111 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 11CEJ300265-1, v. 11CEJ300265-2, 11CEJ300265-3, 11CEJ300265-4) JOHN E., Defendant and Appellant. In re D.L., a Person Coming Under the OPINION Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, F067373 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11CEJ300265-2) v. JOHN E., Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, Commissioner. Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

John E. is the grandfather and former legal guardian of 12-year-old David L., who is a juvenile dependent. John appealed from an October 2012 juvenile court dispositional order, which removed David from John’s custody as legal guardian and that of David’s mother. During the pendency of John’s first appeal, John asked the court to terminate the legal guardianship. John no longer wished to participate in reunification services or the court proceedings and wished to resign as David’s legal guardian. The court granted John’s request and terminated his legal guardianship of David. John appealed. This court subsequently consolidated John’s two appeals. In the first appeal, John’s court-appointed appellate counsel challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decision to remove David from John’s custody. After reviewing the entire record in John’s second appeal, the same counsel informed this court he found no arguable issue to raise. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for John to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) John has since written us of his contempt for respondent Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) and his disdain for the juvenile court. In his view, the department was corrupt and the juvenile court was a kangaroo court. He asks this court to give him and his family justice and return David to him. On review, we will dismiss both appeals. John’s first appeal is moot in light of the juvenile court’s order granting his request to terminate the legal guardianship. In his second appeal, John fails to make a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In December 2011, the department detained David, as well as his siblings, and initiated the underlying dependency proceedings. In large part, the children were at risk of harm due to their mother’s substance abuse and her ongoing domestic violence with John, who provided care for the children. In addition, as John later submitted in the