In re M.J. CA5

Filed 7/9/24 In re M.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF F087404 HUMAN SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. JD143586-00) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION P.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Christie Canales Norris, Judge. Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and DeSantos, J.

P.W. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights to her now two-year-old daughter, M.J., issued at a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 hearing. 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. This court 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 (Phoenix H.).) Mother did not file a letter, but rather filed copies of four cryptic emails, in which she appears to complain about the social worker and the judge without specifying the basis for those complaints,2 as well as about payments she made to the court which she asserts did not go to the children, and asserts she completed all visits as she made up missed visits. We conclude mother failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 13, 2022, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of one-month-old M.J. (daughter), which alleged daughter fell within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (j), as daughter’s sister, Mo.J. (sister), had been declared a dependent under section 300, subdivision (b), in February 2022, based on mother’s mental health issues that interfered with her ability to care for sister, and mother’s noncompliance with taking psychotropic medication. Mother was ordered family reunification services in sister’s case that included mental