In re D.B. CA5

Filed 9/26/14 In re D.B. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F069047 AGENCY, (Sup. Ct. No. JP000454) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION JOHN B. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Merced County. John D. Kirihara, Judge. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, John B. Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Michelle B. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Chittick, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

John B. (father) and Michelle B. (mother) appeal from a March 11, 2014, order terminating their parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 to their eight-year-old daughter, D.B. After reviewing the entire record, father and mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court they could find no arguable issues to raise on father and mother’s behalf. Counsel requested, and this court granted, leave for father and mother 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.).) Father and mother have submitted letters in which they list 12 “arguable issues.” Of those, only the following pertain to the termination proceedings: (1) the social worker lied when she testified father had a confrontation with a sheriff during a visit; (2) minor’s counsel and county counsel mischaracterized the frequency of mother’s visits with D.B.’s half-siblings; and (3) the juvenile court erred in relieving the guardians ad litem at the conclusion of the hearing. The remaining issues pertain to the suitability of D.B.’s prospective adoptive parents, the failure of the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) or counsel to obtain their medical records, and the failure of police to read them their Miranda2 rights. Father and mother also contend two of the social workers involved in their case have been admitted to a psychiatric facility and they question the social workers’ mental stability. As discussed below, we will dismiss the appeal as father and mother have failed to make a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.)