In re A.F. CA5
Filed 9/15/23 In re A.F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F085968 SOCIAL SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. 21CEJ300246-1) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. OPINION N.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, Judge. Roshni Mehta, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.
N.F. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s January 26, 2023 order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 to her now two-year-old daughter, A.F. 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. We 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.) While mother filed a letter, she failed to make such a showing. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND One-month-old A.F. (the baby) presented to the emergency room on July 3, 2021, with bruising on her face, chest, mid-back, and arm. Further evaluation revealed multiple bilateral rib fractures of varying age, a left pulmonary contusion and left hemothorax. The fractures and laboratory test results were indicative of blunt force trauma and child abuse. The baby was admitted to the hospital where she remained for three days. Testing for a bone-related deficiency or genetic disorder was normal. Mother and her boyfriend, E.M., the baby’s father, lived with maternal relatives. Mother noticed bruising on the baby’s chest on July 1, 2021, and showed them to the maternal grandmother, but they thought the bruises were a birth mark or were made when mother breastfed. On the early morning of July 3, mother noticed bruising on the baby’s eye. She discussed the bruises with maternal grandmother, and they decided she should take the baby to the hospital, which mother and E.M. (father) did that day. Mother denied hurting the baby or observing anyone else hurt her. She and father were the primary caregivers, although she left the baby with maternal grandmother for about two hours the week before while she and father went to the store. She had no concerns about father or maternal grandmother caring for the baby.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)