Filed 7/24/13 In re M.C. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO

In re M. C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B243859
(Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent.

v.
JANELLE C.,
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CK87393)

THE COURT:* Appellant Janelle C. (mother) appeals fro m the juvenile court’ s order terminating her parental rights over her daughter, M. C. (born April 2011). We dismiss the appeal.

________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ *ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J ., CHAVEZ, J., FERNS, J.†
†Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chie f Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. BACKGROUND2 Detention and sect ion 300 petition On April 9, 2011, the Lo s Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received an emergenc y response referral on beha lf of newborn M. During delivery, mother disclosed that she wa s hearing voices and hallucinating. After M.’s birth, mother continued to display symptoms of mental illness, including manic behavior and paranoia. The Department’s social work er met with mother in the hospital on April 9, 2011. During that meeting, mother reported a histor y of mental health is sues but would not disclose her diagnosis. She stated that she chose to discontinue taking medication but
would not disclose the medicati on previously prescribed for her. Mother further stated
she did not know the id entity of M.’s father. The following day, the social worker spoke with Dr. Rose, a psychiatrist on staff at the hospital where mother and M. were staying. Dr. Rose opined that mother’s current
mental health issues rendered her incapable of caring for M. On April 13, 2011 , the Department filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code secti on 300, subdivision (b) 1 on behalf of M. a lleging that mother’s mental and emotional problems rendered he r incapable of providing the child with regular care and supervision. At the deten tion hearing held on that same date, mother appeared and identified M.’s father as Robert G. The juvenile court found a prima facie case for detaining M. from mother and ordered th e child detained with a maternal cousin.
The court accorded mother m onitored visits for a minimum of three times a week, two hours per visit, and gave the Departme nt discretion to liberalize the visits. On May 20, 2011, the Department filed an ex parte application seeking to vacate the order detaining M. in the maternal cousin’s home because the cousin could no longer care for the child. The Department reporte d that it was exploring other placement options, including pl acement with out-of-state relatives. The juvenile court granted the ex parte application and ordere d M. placed in foster care.

1 All further statutory references ar e to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 On May 27, 2011, the Department f iled a first amende d petition adding an allegation that M.’s alleged father, Robert G. had failed to provide for the child. Jurisdiction/disposition In its May 2011 jurisdiction/dispositi on report, the Department reported on a May 2, 2011 interview with mother and a telephone conversation between mother and a dependency investigator on Ma y 18, 2011. During the interv iew, mother said that she was unemployed but supported herself through so cial security disab ility income. When asked about the nature of her disability, mother said she had been di agnosed with “manic depression” in 1996. Mother objected to th e removal of M. from her care and said she felt victimized by the Depart ment. During the May 18, 2011 telephone call, mother alternated between whispering and speaking at a normal volume. Most of her comments were directed toward the Depart ment’s unfair treatment of her. Included in the Departme nt’s jurisdiction/disposition report were summaries of email and telephonic communica tions between the dependency investigator and mother’s siblings, Nicole, Gregory, and Jennifer. A ll three siblings stat ed that mother had longstanding mental health issues that impr oved when she took her prescribed medication
and that deteriorated when she did not. Ni cole reported that mo ther’s symptoms of paranoia and delusions seemed to escalate as her pregna ncy progressed. All three siblings expressed concerns about mother’s ability to care for M. The dependency investigator also spoke with maternal cousin Kalyn, with whom M. had initially been detained. Kalyn reported that mother appeared to be obsessed with dust, mold, and perceived impur ities on M.’s skin and that mother was constantly picking at the baby’s face during her mo nitored visits. After M. was placed in foster care, mother’s monitored visits appeared to go well overall; however, mother continued to be overly concerned with cleaning the baby, repe atedly doing so with wet wipes throughout
the visits. At the May 27, 2011 jurisdiction/dispositi on hearing, mother pled no contest to the allegations in the first amended petition, an d the juvenile court sustained the amended petition as to mother. The court ordered an Evidence Code sec tion 730 evaluation of4 mother, and ordered mother to cooperate with the evaluati on, to complete parenting
education and individual counse ling to address mental health issues, and to take all prescribed medications. The court accorded mother monitored vi sits three times per week for a minimum of two hours per visit. The juvenile court found Robert G. to be M.’s alleged father. Because the Department’s efforts to contact Robert G. had been unsuccessful, th e court dismissed the allegations of the petiti on pertaining to him. The court assumed jurisdiction over M. pur suant to section 3 00, subdivision (b)
and ordered that she remain suitably placed. The court au thorized the Department to investigate placing M. with a maternal aunt who lived outside the state.
Evidence Code section 730 evaluation
An Evidence Code section 730 evaluatio n was submitted to the juvenile court on August 22, 2011. The evalua tion, prepared by Dr. William Vicary and by Dr. Jonathan Manaoat, both of the USC K eck School of Medicine, repor ted on their examination and evaluation of mother. During the examinati on, mother disclosed a history of mental health issues dating back to her years in hi gh school. Mother further disclosed that she had been hospitalized at le ast three times for inpatient psychiatric treatment.
Mother stated that her concern over her sk in started in 2007 and that she had seen multiple dermatologists and infectious diseas e doctors for “skin rot.” She claimed she
could “hear vibrations” and “voices” which ar e “abusive” and say things to her such as “movie star quality.” Mother also claimed she could “channel energy,” see “red and green energy,” “chromosomes float from DNA on skin,” as well as “needle points,”
“mold” and “invisible hairs.” The evaluating psychiatrist s concluded that mother’s symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of “Bipolar I Disorder, Severe, with Psychotic Features.” They recommended continuous psychiatric interventi on, including ongoing psychotherapy, and antipsychotic and antimanic medication. Th e evaluators further recommended that M. remain a dependent of the c ourt, that mother be accorded monitored visits and5 reunification services, and that she be reevalua ted in one year to reassess her ability to
benefit from reunification services. Review proceedings and te rmination of services In November 2011, the Department repor ted that M. was placed in a licensed foster home. An approved ICPC 2 home study had been received for maternal aunt Gayle D. in Pennsylvania, and the Department r ecommended that the juvenile court give the Department discretion to place M. with Gayle. Mother had enrolled in a parenting progra m but had not signed a consent to release information regarding her participation in the program to the Department. Mother reported that she had attended only four or five parenting sessions. She had failed to comply with the juvenile court’ s orders to take prescribed psychotropic medication and to participate in individual counseling. Mother had missed approximately 25 perc ent of her monitored visits with M. Three visits had been cancelled by the monito r because of concerns regarding mother’s behavior during the visits. During the vi sits, the monitor observed mother picking at M.’s clothing and body, claiming the child was covered in dog hairs. Mother habitually wiped M.’s face until the child’s face became red and irritated. She voiced concerns about debris becoming “embedded” in M.’s sk in and attempted during several visits to use her finger to remove perceived debris fro m the child’s eye. Wh en redirected, mother became agitated. Mother also appeared to be unaware of M .’s needs and development. She repeatedly asked the mon itor about the baby’s feeding time, insisted on substituting formula for solid food, and attempted to have M. recite the alphabet or use crayons and paper, even though su ch activities were not age-appropriate. At a hearing held on Nove mber 23, 2011, the juvenile court found that mother was not in compliance with her ca se plan, that the Department had provided reasonable efforts, and that there was no substantial proba bility that M. would be returned to mother
within the next six months. The court term inated family reunification services, set a

2 Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Family Code section 7901 et seq.6 section 366.26 hearing for Marc h 21, 2012, and ordered the Department to initiate an adoption home study. Section 366.26 proceedings In March 2012, the Department reported that M. had been placed with out-of-state relatives, maternal aunt Gayle and her husban d, since December 8, 2011. Gayle and her husband were also M.’s prospective adoptive parents. They had four children, ages fourteen, ten, seven, and four. The family ha d grown very attached to M. and wanted to adopt her. Mother remained in California but had regular telephonic contact with M. and her caregivers. At the March 21, 2012 hearing, mother was appointed new counsel. The juvenile court identified adoption as the permanent pl an and continued the section 366.26 hearing to July 5, 2012. In May 2012 , the Department reported th at M. had adjusted well in the home of her prospective adoptive family , was meeting all of her de velopmental milestones, and appeared to be happy. She ha d become attached to her car egivers, who re mained willing to adopt her. The prospective adoptive parents sent photographs to mother an d facilitated telephone contact between mother and child. A request for an a doption home study had been submitted to the State of Pennsylvania. In July 2012, the Department reported that M. a nd her caregivers continued to bond with each other, and the caregivers cons istently reported that they wanted to adopt
the child. Mother had be en informed that she could have monitored visits if she traveled to Pennsylvania. Section 388 petition Mother filed a section 388 petition on Ju ly 5, 2012, requesting an additional six
months of reunification services . In her petition, mother alleged she was now living in a stable home, was seeing a new psychologist , Dr. Stephen Fleisher, and was compliant
with Dr. Fleisher’s recommendations. Moth er further stated that no psychotropic medication had been prescribed for her.7 Attached to mother’s sec tion 388 petition was a letter fr om Dr. Fleisher dated June 30, 2012, stating that he had seen mother for 33 sessions since November 2011. Mother had rented a room and was receiving job training from the State Department of
Rehabilitation. She was not ma nifesting any of the mental illness symptoms previously described to the court, and her current diagnosis was Mood Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, in full remission. Dr. Fleisher opined that mother was now ready for the
reevaluation for reunification services that had been recommended in her Evidence Code section 730 evaluation. Dr. Fleisher further op ined that mother shou ld not be required to take psychotropic medication because she was extremely sensitive to medication and experienced severe side effects. He reco mmended that mother receive another court
ordered evaluation and that the case be transf erred to Pennsylvania if mother relocated there so that mother could have regular contact and visitation with M. Dr. Fleisher stated that the visits should be monitored at first, but only for the first month, as he believed mother posed no threat to M. He also recommended that the adopting relative consider an open adoption. In its response to the sec tion 388 petition, the Department reported that mother had
met with the social worker on August 14, 2012. Mother provided a new home address and said she was seeing Dr. Fleisher on a weekly basis. She had not completed a parenting class because she did not feel the class was appropriate for her. Mother said
she had not taken medication in seven years and that she di d not need to do so. She received photos of M. and spoke with her by telephone two to three times per week. Mother had wanted to see M. during a family reunion in Utah in June, but the social worker had discouraged the vis it. Mother said she would be willing to relocate to be closer to M. if she were granted more reunification services.
The social worker also spoke to the prospective adoptive mother, Gayle, who reported that M. was thriving in her home an d had become a part of her family. Gayle explained that the Pennsylvania social work er had discouraged mother from attending the family reunion in Utah for the sole purpos e of visiting with M., because no family member was willing to serve as the monitor fo r her visits, but mother had gone to Utah8 anyway and had been denied a visit. Moth er had also asked Gayl e and her husband to assume legal guardianship over M. instead of adopting her. On August 10, 2012 , the social worker received a telephonic update from mother’s psychologist, Dr. Fleisher. Dr. Fleisher stated that he ha d to correct a previous diagnosis
he had made of mother’s condition. Hi s previous diagnosis -- that mother had experienced a full inter-episode recovery -- was incorrect. Moth er’s diagnosis was
without full inter-episode recovery. Dr. Fleisher explained that when mother was under stress, she experienced “very odd thinking.” Although he did not believe mother was a danger to anyone, including M., he did not know what would happen if mother were under stress. For this reason, he could no longer recommend unmonitored visits between mother and M., nor could he testify on mother’s behalf. Section 388/366.26 hearing
A contested section 388/36 6.26 hearing was held on Au gust 21, 2012. On that same date, the Department reported that an adoption home study had been approved for M.’s prospective adoptive parents. At the hearing, mother testified that sh e had been seeing Dr. Fleisher on a weekly basis for more than a year. Although mother had been informed of Dr. Fleisher’s statements regarding her odd behavior, she had not discussed the matter with him.
Mother said that the last ti me she had seen M. was on December 13, 2011. Since that date, she had been having telephone contact w ith M. one to two times per week. M. did not know who mother was when they spoke, nor did she know that mother was her
mother. Mother believed that she and M. shared “somewhat” of a bond, but acknowledged that it was difficult to have a bond with a child who was removed from her
care as an infant. Mother also believed she had been treated unfairly, both by the Department and her own family, from whom she had been estranged for seven years.
She said it would be in M.’s best interest to be reunified with her in the future. The juvenile court denied mother’s s ection 388 petition, findi ng there had been no change in mother’s circ umstances and that it was not in th e best interests of the child for
mother to receive additiona l reunification services. Th e court further found that9 continued jurisdiction over the child was both necessary and appropriate, that M. was adoptable, that it would be detr imental to the child to return her to mo ther, and that no exception to terminating parental rights applie d. The court then terminated mother’s parental rights, as well as the parental rights of anyone else claiming to be M.’s parent. The instant appeal We appointed counsel to represent mother in this appeal. After examining the record, mother’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, indicating an inability to find any arguable issu es. On April 25, 2013 , we advised mother that she had 30 days in which to submit any contentions or arguments she wished us to
consider.
Mother submitted a letter br ief in which she requested new appellate counsel, and we denied that request. In her letter brief mo ther stated that the ca se to remove M. from
her was based on false and biased statemen ts and assumptions, and that she was not properly represented by counsel in th e juvenile court proceedings below.
DISCUSSION “An appealed-from judgment or order is pr esumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘present ar gument and authority on each point made’ [citations]. If he does not, he may, in the court’s discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that ev ent, it may order dismissal. [Citation.]” ( In
re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

Mother has established no error in the pr oceedings below, nor any legal basis for reversal. Substantial evidence supports th e juvenile court’s conclusion that M. was adoptable, and that adoption was in the child’s best interest. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.