Filed 7/1/24 In re L.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L.H., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B329528

 (Los Angeles County Super. 

 Ct. No. 23LJJP00097A)

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DENISE H.,

Defendant and Appellant.
2

THE COURT:

Denise H. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders 

exerting dependency jurisdiction over her three-year-old 

daughter under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, 

subdivision (c), and removing her from her custody. 

After mother’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief 

stating that she found no arguable issues (see In re Phoenix 

H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 (Phoenix H.)), mother filed a 

supplemental letter on her own behalf. We have evaluated the 

record as well as the arguments presented in mother’s 

supplemental letter, conclude there was no error, and dismiss 

this appeal pursuant to Phoenix H. and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 

Cal.4th 952 (Sade C.).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and Edwin H. (father) are the parents of L.H. 

(daughter) (born September 2019).

Mother and father split as a couple in June 2020, and have 

been locked in an ongoing dispute over daughter’s custody ever 

since.

In May 2023, the juvenile court exerted dependency 

jurisdiction over daughter after sustaining an allegation that 

mother had repeatedly taken daughter to the hospital for forensic 

evaluations claiming that father had sexually abused daughter

(which law enforcement and medical professionals could not 

substantiate) and had repeatedly examined daughter for evidence 

of abuse whenever she spent time with father. Because this 

course of conduct subjected daughter to emotional abuse, 

including instances in which she would scream and had to be 
3

restrained by medical staff during some examinations, the court 

exerted jurisdiction on the ground that daughter had suffered or 

faced a substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, 

thereby rendering jurisdiction appropriate under subdivision (c) 

of section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The court 

then removed daughter from mother’s custody, released her to 

father, and ordered both parents to complete parenting classes 

and counseling. Mother was also ordered to undergo a 

psychiatric evaluation.

On May 16, 2023, mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

After examining the record, mother’s appellate counsel filed 

an opening brief which raised no issues, and advised mother that 

she could request permission from this court to file a 

supplemental brief upon a showing of good cause that an 

arguable issue exists. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 843-

844.)

On March 5, 2024, mother filed a nine-page letter brief 

asking this court “to reconsider” the juvenile court’s decision and 

grant her custody of daughter. Mother asks this court to do 

something it cannot do, i.e., reweigh the evidence, resolve 

conflicts in the evidence in her favor, and reject the juvenile 

court’s credibility determinations. (See, e.g., T.W. v. Superior 

Court (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 30, 47 [appellate court must “defer 

to the juvenile court’s findings of fact and assessment of the 

credibility of witnesses”]; In re Jordan R. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 

111, 135 [in reviewing jurisdiction findings, the appellate court 

“do[es] not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of 

witnesses or resolve evidentiary conflicts”].)
4

This court presumes a trial court judgment is correct

(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564), and it is the 

appellant who bears the burden of establishing error. Where an 

appellant does not establish an error, we may dismiss the 

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

In this case, mother’s supplemental brief identifies no 

arguable issues on appeal. Mother has not raised any arguable 

issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

juvenile court’s findings and orders. 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.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

——————————————————————————————

LUI, P. J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.