In re A.W. CA5

Filed 2/6/24 In re A.W. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN F086082 SERVICES, (Super. Ct. Nos. JD141693-00, Plaintiff and Respondent, JD141694-00, JD141695-00, JD141696-00) v.

T.W., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Susan M. Gill, Judge. Laura D. Pedicini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant T.W. (father) is the father of the now 13-year-old A.W., 11-year-old D.W., 10-year-old Ai.W., and nine-year-old Da.W. (collectively the children), who are the subjects of this dependency case. Father appealed from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a disposition hearing on April 6, 2023, which resulted in the children being placed in foster care and family reunification services denied as to mother and father. 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 (Phoenix H.).) Father filed a letter brief alleging the denial of relative placement was based upon prejudice, and he also claims that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. He does not, however, allege the juvenile court erred in removing the children or denying family reunification services. We conclude father failed to address the disposition hearing or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the disposition hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 24, 2020, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) filed petitions alleging the children were described by Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The petitions alleged father struck the children with his hand and belt until they stopped crying, and mother failed to protect the children from father. The children were placed together in a resource family home after being taken into protective custody.