In re Marcus C. CA5

Filed 6/30/22 In re Marcus C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MARCUS C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F083899 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18JP-00185-A, Plaintiff and Respondent, 18JP-00185-B)

v. OPINION EDDIE C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appellant Eddie C. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s July 7, 2020, order terminating his parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 to his then four-year-old son, Marcus C., and three-year-old daughter, A.C. After reviewing the juvenile court record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave to file a letter establishing good cause to conclude an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Father filed a letter but failed to show that any arguable issue arose from the termination hearing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Two-year-old Marcus and one-year-old A.C. were removed from the custody of their mother in December 2018 because she was a substance abuser and failed to supervise and properly care for them. Law enforcement found the children several times playing along the highway unattended and the condition of the family home was substandard. Father was incarcerated with a release date of November 2023. The children were placed together in foster care. The juvenile court exercised its dependency jurisdiction over the children in February 2019, ordered the mother to participate in reunification services but denied father services because of the length of his incarceration. (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1).) At the six-month review hearing in July 2019, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for November 6, 2019. Neither parent filed an extraordinary writ petition. In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) informed the juvenile court the children were living with their maternal