Filed 2/10/15 In re I.R. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 I.R., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JESSICA J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F069916

(Super. Ct. No. JD131786-00)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. Louie L. Vega, 

Judge.

Jesse F. Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Smith, J. 
2

Jessica is the mother of one-year-old I. On July 30, 2014, the juvenile court 

terminated her parental rights as to I. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 and she appealed. 

After reviewing the juvenile court record, Jessica’s court-appointed counsel informed this 

court he could find no arguable issues to raise on Jessica’s behalf. This court granted 

Jessica 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.).)

Jessica submitted a letter in which she contends she completed a parenting class 

and a substance abuse treatment program while in jail but did not have certificates to 

verify that at the termination hearing. She asks for leave to file a supplemental brief 

raising these issues. 

We conclude Jessica 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.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

Dependency proceedings were initiated in November 2013 when the Kern County 

Department of Human Services (department) took then five-day-old I. into protective 

custody at the hospital after he tested positive for amphetamines. Jessica had attempted 

to deliver I. at home but had to be transported to the hospital after she hemorrhaged. She 

admitted using methamphetamine and Vicodin a week before. 

Jessica has a long history of substance abuse and child welfare intervention. In 

2002, she gave birth to a daughter who tested positive for amphetamines. Jessica was 

provided six months of reunification services but failed to comply. Jessica’s parental 

rights were terminated and the child was adopted in October 2004. That same month, 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated.
3

Jessica’s second daughter was taken into protective custody and adjudged a dependent 

because of Jessica’s drug use. Jessica was provided six months of services but again 

failed to comply. Her parental rights were terminated and the child was freed for 

adoption. In May 2011, Jessica left her son and daughter in the care of their maternal 

aunt who was under the influence of methamphetamine. The aunt left the children in the 

bathtub with the water running and the drain plugged. When the aunt returned, Jessica’s 

son was floating face down in the water. Jessica waived reunification services and the 

children were ordered into a permanent plan of legal guardianship. 

The juvenile court adjudged I. its dependent and in April 2014 denied Jessica and 

I.’s father reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. By that time, Jessica 

had been arrested on felony charges and was incarcerated. The department placed I. with 

a non-relative extended family member who adopted two of his half-siblings. 

In July 2014, Jessica appeared in custody with her attorney at the section 366.26 

hearing and informed the court that she completed parenting and child neglect classes and 

a 72-hour substance abuse program while in custody. Her attorney asked the court to 

continue the hearing so that he could file a section 388 petition requesting reunification 

services. The court denied the request but allowed Jessica to address the court. Jessica 

admitted that she made bad choices, but explained that she did not know how to be a 

mother because she never had one. She said she had been living on the streets her whole 

life and wanted to break her cycle of losing custody of her children. She asked for more 

time to demonstrate that she could properly care for I.

The juvenile court terminated Jessica’s parental rights, explaining it had to act in 

I.’s best interests. This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION

An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior 

Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is appellant’s burden to raise claims of reversible 
4

error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If appellant 

fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

At a termination hearing, the juvenile court’s focus is on whether it is likely the 

child will be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. 

(1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the 

juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a 

compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under 

any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) (exceptions to 

adoption).

In this case, Jessica did not argue that any of the exceptions to adoption applied. 

Instead, she in essence asked the court to suspend adoption proceedings so that she could 

reopen the issue of reunification services. However, given the late stage of the 

proceedings and Jessica’s history of drug abuse and failed attempts at reunification, the 

juvenile court had no choice but to terminate her parental rights and institute a permanent 

plan for I.

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.