In re Melissa G. CA5

Filed 1/22/15 In re Melissa G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MELISSA G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F069706 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 09JD0091) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION KRISTY A., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge. Neale Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Peña, J.

Kristy A. (mother) appealed from 2014 juvenile dependency court orders denying her petitions to reopen reunification services and terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to three of her children, who ranged in age from eight to twelve years old.1 After reviewing the entire record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for mother 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.) Mother has submitted a letter in which she asks this court to “put our family back together.” Her letter otherwise 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.) We dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In January 2010, the Kings County Superior Court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over four of mother’s children based on the parents’ profound neglect. It also adjudged the children juvenile dependents, removed them from parental custody and ordered reunification services for the parents. Services for mother included a parenting course, counseling, substance abuse treatment and visitation. Despite a year’s worth of reunification services, mother did not make significant progress. The superior court consequently terminated reunification services and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan for the children.