In re Gauge v. CA5

Filed 4/12/16 In re Gauge V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 GAUGE V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F072315 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 14JD0001) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION JULIO V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee Giuliana, Judge. Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Julio V. (father) appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 as to his now six-year-old son Gauge, and four‑year-old daughter A.V. After reviewing the juvenile court record, father’s court- appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave 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 asserts he completed courses in victim awareness and alternatives to violence. He attached certificates to verify his successful completion of the courses. He also asserts in his letter that he has been attending Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous (NA/AA) meetings, is employed, and has a home with two extra bedrooms. He asks for a chance to participate in reunification services and gain custody of his children. We conclude father failed to 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 dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In January 2014, then three-year-old Gauge and 23-month-old A.V. were taken into protective custody after their mother (Jennifer) was arrested for possessing methamphetamine. At the time, father was incarcerated on drug-related charges. He was expected to be released in September 2016. In March 2014, the juvenile court ordered reunification services for Jennifer but denied father services because he was incarcerated and the court determined that providing him services would be detrimental to the children. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).)