In re J.J. CA1/1

Filed 11/5/14 In re J.J. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139897 v. (San Francisco City & County S.M., Super. Ct. No. JD133164) Defendant and Appellant.

S.M. (mother) appeals from jurisdiction and disposition orders pursuant to which the juvenile court sustained dependency jurisdiction, adjudicated the minor, J.J., a dependent of the court, removed the minor from mother’s custody, and ordered reunification services and monitored visitation. Counsel filed a “no issues statement” in accordance with In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sadie C.) and In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.).1 Counsel served mother with a copy and advised her

1 In Phoenix H., the Supreme Court reiterated that counsel’s filing of a “no issues statement” in an appeal in a juvenile dependency proceeding does not trigger independent review by the appellate court. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–842.) Rather, once counsel reviews the record on appeal and files such a statement, the appellate court may rely on it, and may properly dismiss the appeal. (Id. at p. 842 [“we held [in Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at page 994] that the Court of Appeal could dismiss an indigent parent’s appeal if appointed counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues”].) 1

she could file a letter with this court suggesting errors for review. Mother has filed a “Statement” which we have reviewed. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844 [appellate court “has discretion to permit the parent to personally file a brief” and is required to do so “only upon a showing of good cause that an arguable issue does, in fact, exist”].) Mother contends the dependency proceeding is the result of false accusations and statements by a woman who was a competing vendor selling hotdogs, and by her sister- in-law who allegedly can no longer bear children and wanted to take away her daughter. Mother claims she did not know until the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing about the “past” of the man accused of molesting her daughter, Henry Trejos, who she states was her employer and who has had a sustained finding of sexual abuse in another matter. Mother maintains she is devoted to and can protect her daughter, who is nine years old. “On appeal, the ‘substantial evidence’ test is the appropriate standard of review for both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings.” (In re J.K. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1433.) We must uphold the jurisdictional findings if, “after reviewing the entire record and resolving all conflicts in favor of the respondent and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment, we determine there is substantial evidence to support the findings.” (In re Monique T. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1378.) We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, examine the record in a light most favorable to the dependency court’s findings and conclusions, and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold the court’s order. (In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379; In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733–734.) We have reviewed the record, paying particular attention to the reports prepared for and the reporter’s transcript of the contested hearing. The child protective worker (CPW) testified the department received a report of suspected sexual abuse, and she found J.J. in a van with the windows covered. J.J. did not tell the CPW she had been sexually abused, but avoided contact whenever the CPW raised the issue. The CPW did learn J.J. had been told she had to urinate into a bucket in the van because mother and Trejos were busy selling hotdogs at the location.