In re Amanda B. CA5

Filed 2/18/15 In re Amanda B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 AMANDA B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F070283 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JD131575-00) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION JAMES B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. William D. Palmer, Judge. Karen J. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, P.J., Poochigian, J., and Peña, J.

James B. (father) appealed from a September 2014 order terminating parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to one-year-old Amanda B.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 did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Father has submitted a letter in which he complains he would not be “in this situation” were he not indigent and had he not had to rely on a court-appointed attorney in the trial court. According to father, he did nothing wrong to warrant losing his parental rights and this was a “clear violation of [his due process] rights.” Father’s 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 will dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In November 2013, the juvenile court adjudged father’s infant daughter a juvenile dependent and ordered her removed from the physical custody of both parents. The mother, who had a history of substance abuse, had neglected the child. Father earlier left Amanda and her mother due to the mother’s substance abuse but took no steps to care for the child. Father later engaged in domestic violence against the mother. As a result, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that it would be detrimental to place the child with father. Father did not appeal the juvenile court’s November 2013 decision.