Filed 12/17/20 In re B.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 B.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F081437

(Super. Ct. No. JVDP-19-000158)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. 

Ameral, Judge.

S. Lynne Klein, 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 Peña, J.
2

We review for the third time dependency proceedings that began in the juvenile 

dependency court in April 2019 regarding P.T. (mother) and her four minor children. In 

May 2020, we denied extraordinary writ petitions seeking relief from the court’s orders 

terminating her reunification services for the three older children and denying her 

reunification services for her youngest son, B.T.,1 and setting a Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 366.26 hearing.2

On this appeal, mother challenges the juvenile court’s order terminating her 

parental rights (§ 366.26) to now one-year-old B.T. 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.)

Mother filed a letter but failed to address the termination findings or orders or set 

forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the 

section 366.26 hearing. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, 

we dismiss the appeal.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY

B.T. was removed from mother’s custody at birth in July 2019 by the Stanislaus 

County Community Services Agency (agency) while she was receiving reunification 

services for his seven-, three- and one-year-old siblings (the siblings). B.T. and his 

siblings are the product of an incestuous 10-year relationship between mother and her 

father, M.T. (father). Father also had an open dependency case arising from allegations 

1 P.T. v. Superior Court (May 22, 2020, F080715) [nonpub. opn.] and P.T. v. 

Superior Court (May 22, 2020, F080782) [nonpub. opn.]. On our own motion, we take 

judicial notice of our case files and opinions in case Nos. F080715 and F080782. (Evid. 

Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subds. (a)–(c).)

2 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

he sexually molested his then 16-year-old son, J.T. J.T. was placed in a group home and 

father was denied reunification services. 

Mother and father share a rare chromosomal defect, which was passed on to 

several of the children, including B.T. The genetic disorder results in developmental 

delay as well as other complications. Father was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia 

and mother with dependent personality disorder and intellectual deficiency. B.T. was 

placed in foster care. 

The siblings were removed in April 2019 after the agency received a report of

unsafe and unsanitary conditions at mother’s home. The house smelled of animal urine

and feces and there was a significant amount of trash in the living area. The siblings

appeared thin and malnourished. The middle sibling, then two years old, was not able to 

sit up, hold his head up, crawl or hold a bottle. He was diagnosed with global 

developmental delay. The juvenile court adjudged the siblings dependents and ordered 

reunification services for mother only. At a contested six-month review hearing in 

January 2020, the court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a May 2020 

section 366.26 hearing. 

Meanwhile, mother gave birth to B.T. in July 2019 and a child welfare case was 

opened for him. Mother claimed she was no longer in a relationship with father. She 

regularly participated in services to reunify with the siblings and was cooperative with 

the agency. However, she was either unable or unwilling to acknowledge the children’s 

special needs, raising questions about her protective capacity. 

The agency filed a dependency petition on B.T.’s behalf under section 300,

subdivisions (b)(1) and (j), alleging he was the product of an incestuous relationship

between mother and father. The petition included additional allegations concerning the

circumstances of the siblings’ case, father’s mental illness, allegations made by J.T., 

mother’s brother, that father sexually molested him, allegations made by mother’s then 
4

seven-year-old son that his parents taught him to masturbate and watched him do it, and 

mother’s steadfast refusal to believe her brother and son were sexually abused. 

Mother’s attorney requested at the detention hearing that B.T. be released from the 

hospital to mother’s custody because she severed all ties with father and was fully 

engaged in her services. The juvenile court declined to place B.T. with mother but 

ordered the agency to assess her for placement if she handled B.T. well during supervised 

visits. The court issued a restraining order against father. Mother understood B.T. would 

not be returned to her if she violated the order. 

In August 2019, the agency amended the petition by adding additional allegations 

under subdivision (b)(1). Specifically, the agency alleged that mother remained adamant 

father did not sexually abuse J.T. despite the juvenile court’s finding that he did. Mother 

was also adamant the seven-year-old was not sexually abused despite his focus on sexual 

and violent topics. The seven-year-old talked about wanting to kill people and asked 

children at school, “ ‘[W]ho wants to talk about sex?’ ” He drew pictures of mother and 

father having sex, naked body parts, guns, and other violent themes concerning sex. In 

addition, the seven-year-old frequently masturbated in the caregiver’s home. Mother 

remained ignorant of B.T.’s developmental delay and offered other reasons to explain it 

such as a mishap during delivery. She justified his difficulty breathing as normal for a 

premature baby even though he was not born prematurely. 

The agency recommended the juvenile court order mother to participate in a 

psychological evaluation with Dr. Cheryl Carmichael. In her psychological evaluation 

issued in September 2019, Dr. Carmichael opined mother was incapable of safely 

parenting the children and there were no modifications that could be made to her case 

plan to enhance her ability to reunify. 

Meanwhile, B.T.’s developmental delay was becoming more pronounced. He was 

struggling to hold his head up and was not making eye contact or tracking. During an 

evaluation in October 2019, he was assessed at one month for locomotion development
5

and two months for reflex development. He measured a gross motor quotient of 

1.33 months, indicating a 56 percent delay. He had hypotonia (low muscle tone) in his 

trunk and neck muscles. On October 28, a cardiologist found he had an atrial septal 

defect which had to be monitored every six months. If the defect did not resolve on its 

own, the cardiologist planned to repair it when he was four or five years old. 

At hearings in October and November 2019, the juvenile court appointed mother a

guardian ad litem (GAL), sustained the amended petition and ordered mother to complete

a second psychological evaluation with Dr. Edward Moles. The court set the

dispositional hearing for January 30, 2020. Father absented himself from those and all 

subsequent hearings. 

Dr. Moles issued his report in December 2019, concluding mother had a chronic

mental incapacity—a dependent personality disorder and intellectual deficiency—and

opined that she was unable to benefit from reunification services. 

In an addendum report for the dispositional hearing, the agency recommended the

juvenile court deny mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(2) 

based on the opinions of Drs. Carmichael and Moles that she could not benefit from 

services. The agency recommended the court deny father reunification services under 

section 361.5, subdivision (a) because it would not benefit B.T. 

On February 10, 2020, mother appeared with her attorney and GAL at the

contested dispositional hearing regarding B.T. She testified she did not agree with the 

opinions of Drs. Carmichael and Moles. She believed they worked for the agency and 

their opinions were not valid. She continued to participate in services and believed she 

benefitted from them. She discussed having children with her father in her group 

sessions and realized it was not a “wise choice.” She understood B.T. was 

developmentally delayed because of her incestuous relationship with father. She wanted 

the court to allow her to complete a third psychological evaluation to prove she could 

take care of the children. 
6

The juvenile court found it would be detrimental to return B.T. to mother’s

custody and denied her reunification services as recommended. The court based its 

ruling on the psychological evaluations but also expressed concern that mother did not 

interact very much with B.T. during visitation, such as talking to him. She also held him 

without supporting his neck, knowing that he was unable to support his head, and handled 

him roughly. The court was also concerned that mother maintained contact with father 

and denied it. The court set the section 366.26 hearing for June 9, 2020. 

The agency recommended the juvenile court terminate parental rights and 

establish adoption as B.T.’s permanent plan. Although B.T.’s genetic disorder was likely 

to severely impact his health and development, his foster parents were aware of his 

condition and wanted to adopt him. Mother minimized the severe ramifications of having 

children with her father. She believed the children were fine in her care and believed she 

was being discriminated against because of her lifestyle. She also maintained her 

relationship with father. In February 2020, the police responded to an incident involving 

father and mother. Father admitted to the incestuous relationship with mother and said 

they had been living together for the prior six months. 

On June 9, 2020, mother’s attorney read into the record mother’s offer of proof 

that she and B.T. had a parent-child bond and that terminating her parental rights would 

cause him psychological problems. She could meet all his needs, including physical 

therapy, if he were returned to her custody. She asserted it would be in B.T.’s best 

interest to allow her to retain her parental rights and bond with him. Her offer of proof 

was accepted. 

The juvenile court construed mother’s offer of proof as an argument the beneficial 

parent-child exception to adoption applied. The court, however, found it inapplicable 

because although mother regularly and consistently visited B.T., she failed to show that 

preserving her relationship with him overrode the benefit he would attain through an 
7

adoptive home. The court found B.T. was likely to be adopted and terminated parental 

rights. 

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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, the court is required to 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). 

Mother attempted to establish that termination of her parental rights would be 

detrimental to B.T. She did so by invoking the beneficial parent-child relationship 

exception to adoption, which states, “The parents have maintained regular visitation and 

contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” 

(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The juvenile court, however, was not persuaded and 

declined to apply the exception.

Mother does not argue in her letter the juvenile court erred in terminating her 

parental rights. Instead, she contends she was never given a fair chance, she was 

mistreated by her peers in her parenting class, the social worker did not communicate 

with her, and there was no reason not to return B.T. to her custody because she changed 

her lifestyle. She also contends her due process right was violated. Having failed to raise 

any arguable issues from the termination hearing in her letter, however, we conclude 

there is no good cause to merit additional briefing. Further, though we are not required to 
8

do so, we have reviewed the record as it relates to the termination hearing and have found 

no arguable issues. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.