In re J.W. CA3

Filed 7/6/21 In re J.W. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re J.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C091219 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD238390, CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, JD238391, JD238392, JD239134) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant M.W., the paternal grandfather of the subject minors, filed a notice of appeal from the juvenile court’s November 4, 2019 and November 8, 2019 orders. On November 4, 2019, the juvenile court held a contested relative placement hearing and found placement with appellant or the paternal great-uncle was not appropriate or in the minors’ best interests. Also on November 4, 2019, the juvenile court held a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing [statutory section references that follow are to this Code], terminated parental rights and freed the minors for adoption. The juvenile court signed the written orders terminating parental rights on November 8, 2019.

1

Appellant appears to take issue with the evidence and basis for termination of father’s parental rights and with the failure to place the minors with the paternal great- uncle. He also makes passing reference to his own “right to gain kinship” of his grandchildren. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

DISCUSSION I

Standard of Review

A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct and it is “appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) As the reviewing court, we will not perform an independent, unassisted review of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citation.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) With respect to the citations to the record, the appellant must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court].) Points raised but not in compliance with these requirements results are deemed without merit and forfeited on appeal. (In re S.C., at p. 408; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) The foregoing rules apply to all litigants, including those who represent themselves on appeal. (McComber v. Wells, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 523.) Nonetheless, appellant’s brief fails to adhere to these rules. As we shall explain, none of appellant’s claims are cognizable in this appeal.