In re R v. CA5

Filed 4/22/21 In re R.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F081708 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 19JP-00105-A) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION MARCO V. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. Linda K. Harvie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.B. Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Marco V. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

Appellants Marco V. (father) and T.B. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 as to their now 20-month-old daughter, R.V. After reviewing the juvenile court record, the parents’ court-appointed counsel informed this court they could find no arguable issues to raise on the parents’ behalf. This court granted the parents 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.) Appellants filed letters but failed to address the termination findings or orders or 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 Newborn R.V. (the baby) was taken into protective custody in August 2019 by the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) because of her parents’ history of domestic violence and violent behavior. Two months before, police responded to a report of a domestic disturbance at their apartment, which resulted in father being injured and mother arrested. The baby was placed with a nonrelated extended family member in Merced County. The parents have a significant history with child protective services. When the baby was born, mother had an open child dependency case regarding another daughter who was removed as a newborn in April 2018 after mother and the daughter tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother also had untreated mental health and domestic violence problems. The juvenile court provided her reunification services but terminated them at the 18-month review hearing in November 2019 and returned the daughter to her father’s custody with family maintenance services. The court dismissed its dependency