In re Dominic G. CA5
Filed 12/24/20 In re Dominic G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DOMINIC G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F081615 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18JP-00105B, Plaintiff and Respondent, 18JP-00105C, 18JP-00105D )
v. OPINION KARLA P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Merced County. Donald J. Proietti, Judge. David M. Yorton, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Jennifer Trimble, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.
Karla P. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing1 on July 21, 2020, selecting a permanent plan of legal guardianship for her now 12- and 13-year-old sons, Jose and Dominic, respectively, and 10-year-old daughter, N.G. (the children). After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother 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.) Mother filed a letter but failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the section 366.26 hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Dependency proceedings were initiated in August 2018 after one of the children contacted law enforcement, stating, “I am tired of being hungry and my mom being gone.” Sheriff’s deputies found the children at home with their then 16-year-old half sister, D.P., and her 11-month-old son. D.P. said mother left the children without food for days and weeks at a time. She believed mother was using methamphetamine because she saw smoke that did not smell like marijuana coming from mother’s room. The Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) took the children into protective custody and placed them with relatives. Mother made her first court appearance at the dispositional hearing in October 2018. The juvenile court ordered her to submit to random drug testing and continued the hearing. Mother did not drug test then or after two more court orders to do
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)