In re Joseph J. CA5

Filed 9/3/14 In re Joseph J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JOSEPH J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F069170 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 12JD0063) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION ROGER S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James LaPorte, Judge. Valerie Newton Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Roger S. (father) appeals from a February 2014 order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his two-year-old son, Joseph.1 After reviewing the entire record, father’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she could find 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 does exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) Father has since submitted a letter in which he faults respondent Kings County Human Services Agency (agency) for the loss of his parental rights. According to father, the agency wrongfully used evidence about his past to take Joseph away from him and then failed to work with him towards reunification. Father also characterizes the termination of his parental rights as unconstitutional. As discussed below, we will dismiss the appeal as father has failed to make a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error at the termination hearing does exist. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY A combination of parental drug abuse and domestic violence led the agency to initiate dependency proceedings for infant Joseph in the summer of 2012. In particular, the parents had a violent altercation in Joseph’s presence in July 2012, which led to father’s arrest and incarceration. In September 2012, father submitted to a petition, alleging multiple grounds for Joseph’s dependency (§ 300, subd. (b) & (g)), on the basis of an agency social worker’s reports and waived his rights. The juvenile court in turn exercised its dependency jurisdiction over Joseph, adjudged him a dependent and removed him from parental custody. As part of its dispositional order, the court also ordered the agency to provide