In re D.R. CA5

Filed 11/28/22 In re D.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN F084556 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. JJV073911A) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION DAVID S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. John P. Bianco, Judge. David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant David S. (father) appealed from the juvenile court’s June 6, 2022 order continuing a hearing on his request under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 to modify its prior order denying him reunification services as to his now three-year-old son, D.R. 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 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.) Father filed a letter but failed to set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the June 6, 2022 hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY In July 2021, a first amended dependency petition was filed in Riverside County alleging newborn M.R. and two-year-old D.R. came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect) because father and their mother Alejandra (mother) suffered from mental illness and engaged in domestic violence, which placed the children at risk of harm. The petition specifically alleged as to father that he had violent outbursts, paranoid and threatening behavior, isolated himself, mother and the children, and threatened and choked mother in front of the children. The petition identified Alexis N. as M.R.’s father and alleged that his whereabouts were unknown. (§ 300, subd. (g).) The Riverside County Juvenile Court ordered the children detained and on December 10, 2021, removed them from parental custody, ordered reunification services for mother and transferred the case to Tulare County. The Riverside County Juvenile Court denied father reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2) (mental