Filed 9/11/24 In re Vera M. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re VERA M., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B335424

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARISSA W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super Ct. No. 21CCJP03165A)

APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County. Mark A. Davis, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Marissa W., in pro. per.; and Aida Aslanian, under 

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

Both Marissa W. (Mother) and E.M. (Father) appealed from 

the trial court order terminating their parental rights for Vera 

M., who is now five years old. Counsel representing Mother and 

Father each filed briefs identifying no arguable issue for appeal 

consistent with In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 843–844 

(Phoenix H.). Thereafter, Mother filed a supplemental brief and 

Father did not. Consequently, this court dismissed Father’s 

appeal as abandoned. We now address whether Mother raised 

arguable issues for appeal in her supplemental brief. 

On August 30, 2021, the trial court asserted jurisdiction 

over Vera finding that Mother’s mental health, substance abuse, 

and failure to protect from Father’s domestic abuse presented a 

risk to Vera. The trial court also asserted jurisdiction over Vera 

due to sustained allegations based on Father’s conduct. At 

disposition, the trial court removed Vera from both parents and 

ordered family reunification services. Mother’s case plan 

included a parenting program, individual counseling, a substance 

abuse program with aftercare, drug and alcohol testing, a 12-step 

program, a domestic violence program with a support group, 

mental health counseling, a psychological assessment, a 

psychiatric evaluation, and an order to take psychotropic 

medication. 

On January 10, 2022, the trial court ordered that Vera’s 

maternal grandmother was to be a co-educational rights holder 

for Vera.

On March 1, 2022, the trial court proceeded with the sixmonth review hearing where it continued Mother’s reunification 

services after finding Mother minimally complied with her case 

plan. The trial court did not return Vera to Mother’s care. 

On September 21, 2022, the trial court presided over the 12-
3

month review hearing, and found Mother’s case plan progress to 

be unsubstantial. The trial court again ruled that Vera would 

not be returned to Mother. Instead, the trial court terminated 

Mother’s reunification services and set a permanency planning 

hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. 

On January 18, 2023, after a permanency planning hearing, the 

trial court found notice to be sufficient for Mother, but not for 

Father. Other than addressing notice, the trial court did not 

proceed with the hearing on that day. Thereafter, the trial court 

continued the matter multiple times while continuing to note 

that notice was proper for Mother.

On February 26, 2024, the trial court conducted the 

permanency planning hearing. Both the Los Angeles County

Department of Children and Family Services and Vera’s counsel 

asked the trial court to terminate parental rights. Mother was 

not present for the hearing, but Mother’s counsel objected to the 

termination of parental rights and asked the court to order a 

legal guardianship. Father was present for the hearing. 

However, the court briefly removed Father when he interrupted

the hearing with vulgarities before ultimately allowing Father to 

listen to the conclusion of the hearing on his counsel’s phone 

while Father was muted. Father’s counsel objected to the 

termination of Father’s parental rights and offered argument on 

his behalf. After considering argument and weighing the 

evidence, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s 

parental rights. 

This court presumes a trial court judgment is correct. 

(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) An 

appellant bears the burden of establishing error. Where an 

appellant does not establish an error, we may dismiss the appeal. 
4

(In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 (Sade C.).) Unlike in a 

criminal case, we have no duty to conduct an independent review 

of the record. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–843.)

Here, on August 8, 2024, Mother filed a supplemental brief 

after her counsel filed a Phoenix H. brief. Mother argues that she 

has turned around her life and completed an inpatient domestic 

violence program, among other important changes she has made. 

Mother asks for return of Vera because of these changes. While 

commendable that Mother indicates she has completed programs, 

a child cannot be returned to a parent’s care in a permanency and 

planning hearing. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630.) 

Thus, Mother does not present an arguable issue for appeal on 

this front. In addition, Mother also argues that she did not have 

notice of hearings beginning in November 2023, but the record 

indicates that notice was sufficient to Mother in January 2023 for 

the permanency planning hearing. Finally, Mother has not 

presented any arguable issue regarding any potential parentalbenefit exception. (Id. at p. 632.) We accordingly dismiss 

Mother’s appeal. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 846; Sade 

C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

VIRAMONTES, J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON, P. J. WILEY, J.