In re L.S. CA5

Filed 5/5/22 In re L.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.S. et. al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F083608 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. 17CEJ300275-2, Plaintiff and Respondent, 17CEJ300275-3, 17CEJ300275-4, 17CEJ300275-5, 17CEJ300275-6, v. 17CEJ300275-7)

R.S., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly J. Nystrom-Geist, Judge. Meghan Grim and Brian C. Bitker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant R.S. (mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s October 29, 2021 dispositional orders removing her six children, ranging from three to 12 years of age, from her custody and denying her reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3),1 which allows the court to deny a parent reunification services when the child has been removed multiple times for physical or sexual abuse. After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed counsel informed this court she 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 dispositional hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Prior Removal In September 2017, then 11-year-old X.S., eight-year-old L.S., seven-year-old Q.B., Jr., six-year-old G.B., four-year-old L.D., and three-year-old C.B. were removed from mother’s custody after the two youngest children reported mother and her boyfriend, Eric C., hit the two eldest children with a belt, leaving bruises on their legs and arms. The juvenile court sustained allegations mother was aware Eric was hitting the children but did not intervene. She told the children not to tell their father, Q.B. (father).2 The children were adjudged dependents and mother and father were ordered to participate in reunification services. In March 2018, mother gave birth to Eric’s son, J.C., who was