In re J.F. CA5

Filed 3/7/13 In re J.F. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F065786 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. 11CEJ300218-1) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION I.F., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Timothy A. Kams, Judge. Hana B. Balfour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.

I.F. (mother) has challenged juvenile court dispositional orders (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361 & 361.5 subd. (b)(6)), among others, pertaining to her nine-year-old daughter, J.1 After reviewing the appellate record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. Counsel requested and this court granted leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error did exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Mother makes numerous allegations about respondent Fresno County Department of Social Services (the department), the superior court, and those appointed to represent her. She assumes this court may reconsider and thoroughly investigate the facts relating to this case. However, as discussed below, mother misunderstands the role of an appellate court and her responsibility as an appellant. None of mother’s allegations constitute a good cause showing that there is any arguable issue of reversible error. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we will dismiss her appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY This case commenced in October 2011 after then eight-year-old J. (child) wrote in her school journal that she had been spanked. This led to the discovery of marks, bruising, and welts on the child’s leg. As a result, mother was arrested.2 Although mother provided relatives’ names for placement, she did not have any contact information. Consequently, the department detained the child and initiated the underlying dependency proceedings.