In re J.C. CA5

Filed 4/24/14 In re J.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F068865 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. JP000629) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION M.V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT*† APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Donald E. Shaver, Judge. Michelle L. Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Peña, J., and LaPorte, J. † Judge James LaPorte is a Judge of the Superior Court of Kings County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

M.V. (father) appealed from a February 2014 order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his three-year-old son J.C. (child).2 After reviewing the entire record, father’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she found no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for father 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.) Father has since submitted a letter in which he describes his current circumstances and asks us to return custody of J.C. Father’s letter 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.) Consequently, we will dismiss the appeal. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND A juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over two-year-old J.C. and removed him from parental custody in 2012 due to his parents’ inability to provide him with adequate care as a result of their chronic substance abuse. J.C. was originally detained after father was arrested for testing positive for methamphetamine and consequently violating his probation. The court ordered reunification services for father that included substance abuse services and drug testing. Father received 12 months of reunification services. During the first six months, he complied with services but continued to test positive for illegal substances and was incarcerated for another probation violation. During the second six months, his progress was unsatisfactory. He continued to use illegal drugs and “get arrested.” He admitted he was regularly using heroin and had been doing so for five years. In addition, he