In re A.M. CA5

Filed 9/26/14 In re A.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN F069261 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. JJV066982A) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION BRIAN M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Jennifer Conn Shirk, Judge. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Brian M. (father) appealed from an April 3, 2014 order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 to his five, three and one-year old daughters. After reviewing the entire record, father’s court-appointed 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 exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) Father submitted a letter in which he asks this court to grant him reunification services. Father does not, however, address the termination proceedings or set forth 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.) Consequently, we will dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In July 2013, the juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over father’s three daughters because father and the children’s mother had longstanding drug addictions, mother had mental health issues, and because their oldest daughter, then four years old, was sexually molested by a man who lived with mother and the children on or before December 2012. The Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) placed the children in foster care. The juvenile court ordered reunification services for the children’s mother at the dispositional hearing but denied father reunification services because of his extensive history of drug use and resistance to court-ordered treatment. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(13).)2