Filed 6/30/22 In re S.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 S.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JENNA L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F083898

(Super. Ct. No. 20JP-00004B)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. 

McCabe, Judge.

Sean Angele Burleigh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

Appellant, Jenna L. (mother), mother of now 14-year-old S.L. appealed from the 

juvenile court’s January 18, 2022, order establishing a permanent plan of legal 

guardianship. After reviewing the juvenile court record, mother’s court-appointed 

counsel informed this court he 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 (Phoenix H.).)

Mother filed a letter asking for leave to file supplemental briefing because her 

attorney was negligent and refused to remove herself. She also alleges S.L. wanted to 

address the juvenile court but his attorney would not allow it. 

We conclude mother failed to 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

In January 2020, law enforcement took then 11-year-old S.L. and his 14-year-old 

brother, L.L. (the boys), into protective custody and arrested mother for child 

endangerment after investigating allegations that she used excessive physical force in 

disciplining them. L.L. disclosed multiple incidents of being hit in his testicles with a 

belt buckle, punched in the stomach and in the face and pushed into the kitchen counter 

by mother. S.L. reported mother hit him with a belt, paddle, or her fist a couple of times 

a week, leaving bruises. Mother made him take long baths in Epsom salt to diminish the 

marks and bruises. The fathers of the boys were aware mother was physically abusing 

them but did not intervene to protect them. The boys were placed in the care and custody 

of the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) and into a foster home.

 The juvenile court detained the boys pursuant to an original dependency petition, 

alleging they came within its jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). 

S.L.’s father died the day before the detention hearing.
3.

A contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing was conducted in June 2020. S.L. 

testified mother abused him his whole life by hitting him with objects. Asked how he 

would feel if the court returned him to mother’s custody, he said, “I’m never going back 

to my mom’s.” “No one is gonna make me. And if I do, I guess, I’m taking off.” L.L. 

also testified mother abused him nearly his whole life. “[N]othing in the world,” he 

testified, “would make me go back to her.” He explained, “I don’t want to live with 

someone that would hurt me.”

Mother testified and denied physically abusing the boys, although she admitted 

spanking them with her open hand and hitting them with a belt. She also denied having 

L.L. take salt baths to reduce swelling or bruising. She wanted to reunify with the boys 

and asked that they be returned to her.

The juvenile court sustained the allegations, declared the boys dependents of the 

court and removed them from mother’s custody. The court ordered mother to participate 

in services to reunify with S.L. and set a six-month review hearing. The court cautioned 

mother about fighting with S.L. and asked S.L. to keep an open mind and try to work 

toward a meaningful relationship with her. The court included in its visitation order the 

option that S.L. “opt out” if he did not want to have contact with mother.1 The court 

placed L.L. with his father in Oklahoma and ordered a home visit. The court ultimately 

awarded L.L.’s father full custody of him, granted mother visitation and dismissed 

dependency.

In September 2020, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court continued 

reunification services for mother with S.L. who had been placed in a short-term 

1 Mother appealed in the first of several appeals taken from these dependency 

proceedings. In this first appeal, the portion of the trial court’s visitation order allowing 

S.L. to “opt out” of visitation was reversed. (In re L.L. (Feb. 22, 2021, F081371) 

[nonpub. opn.].) On our own motion, we take judicial notice of our case file and opinion 

in this and all subsequently referenced prior opinions. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 

459, subds. (a)–(c).)
4.

residential therapeutic program. He maintained that he did not want to return to mother’s 

custody, stating, “ ‘If I go back with my mom, I will kill myself.’ ” The juvenile court 

ordered visits to be “no less than one time monthly, as recommended and in the best 

interest and at the discretion of [S.L.].”2

In its report for the 12-month review hearing, filed in February 2021, the agency 

recommended the juvenile court continue mother’s reunification services. The agency 

noted S.L. was living with a nonrelative extended family member. Mother was residing 

in Oklahoma and had supervised visits with him in California. She refused to accept 

responsibility for why the boys were removed from her care and claimed they recanted. 

S.L. wanted the court to know he did not want to go home with his mother but wanted to 

stay with his “ ‘grandma’ ” and “ ‘grandpa.’ ”

3

Mother’s attorney requested a contested 12-month review hearing because mother 

wanted S.L. returned to her custody in Oklahoma with family maintenance services. The 

contested hearing was conducted in March 2021. County counsel informed the court that 

the agency submitted an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) to the 

state of Oklahoma to assess mother’s home. The results were pending. Mother’s 

attorney submitted the matter in light of the ICPC. Mother informed the court she 

completed almost 80 hours of parenting instruction and attended trauma counseling three 

to four times a week. The juvenile court continued mother’s reunification services and 

found there was a substantial probability S.L. could be returned to her custody and set the 

18-month review hearing for June 24, 2021.

2 On appeal, the parties stipulated to reversal of the visitation order. We accepted 

the stipulation and reversed the visitation order. (In re L.L. (May 26, 2021, F082005) 

[nonpub. opn.].)

3 S.L. was placed with Mr. and Mrs. F. who he regarded as his “grandpa” and 

“grandma.” They raised S.L.’s father but did not adopt him. Because they were not 

relatives, they fell into the category of “nonrelative extended family member.”
5.

In a letter dated May 11, 2021, the Oklahoma Human Services denied the ICPC 

home study. Mother had seven referrals in Oklahoma, the majority of which alleged 

physical abuse. In June 2020, she completed a psychological assessment and was found 

to have poor insight, which placed her children at risk. In addition, the references 

obtained for the home study were guarded. Mother told the Oklahoma worker that she 

never abused the boys and “the only reason they are in custody is because her children 

told the judge they did not want to go home.” She said the boys were in custody because 

L.L. lied, and S.L. went along with it.

On June 21, 2021, mother filed a modification petition (§ 388) asking the juvenile 

court to return S.L. to her custody with or without family maintenance services. She 

alleged she had completed her case plan requirements and could provide a safe and stable 

home for S.L. A hearing was set on July 1, 2021, for the court to determine whether to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing.

The 18-month review hearing, originally set for June 24, 2021, was continued to 

July 1, 2021. The agency filed its report for the hearing on June 29 and recommended 

the juvenile court terminate mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26 

hearing. The agency was concerned about mother’s interactions with S.L. during visits. 

He reported on one occasion he told mother he loved her, and she responded, “ ‘You do 

not love me[.] [K]ids that love their parents want to be with them.’ ” S.L. expressed 

multiple times he did not want to return to mother’s custody and wanted to remain in his 

current placement. He said, “ ‘I have been in over 15 foster homes and I want to stay 

here.’ ”

On July 1, 2021, the juvenile court set a contested 18-month review hearing for 

August 17, 2021. The court denied mother a hearing on her section 388 petition.

Mother testified at the contested 18-month review hearing on August 17 and 

denied physically abusing L.L. and S.L. She did not believe the agency should have ever 

intervened in her case. The juvenile court admitted L.L. and S.L.’s testimony from the 
6.

jurisdiction/disposition hearing. Minor’s counsel made an offer of proof that S.L. did not 

want to go home because he did not feel safe.

The juvenile court found it would be detrimental to return S.L. to mother’s 

custody, terminated her reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for 

December 2, 2021. In ruling, the court stated mother and the boys could not both be 

correct on the question of whether mother physically abused them, and the court did not 

find mother to be credible. The court also noted that mother’s continued denials of the 

physical abuse of the boys prevented her from making further progress.4

On September 13, 2021, mother filed a section 388 petition asking for 

unsupervised visitation, reimbursement for an attorney with writ experience, a restraining 

order preventing anyone from vaccinating S.L., and for the court to terminate jurisdiction. 

The court denied the petition, finding mother’s proposed orders were not in S.L.’s best 

interest.

On October 4, 2021, S.L. filed a section 388 petition, requesting unsupervised 

visits because he had not seen mother for three months and wanted to see her. The 

juvenile court denied the request as it appeared S.L. filed the petition without benefit of 

counsel and failed to show that unsupervised visitation was in his best interest.

The agency recommended the juvenile court order a permanent plan of legal 

guardianship for S.L. He was placed with a nonrelative extended family member in 

Ventura County and wanted to be in a legal guardianship with his caregivers. He had 

monthly supervised visits with mother and enjoyed being with her but was worried that if 

he went to Oklahoma she might “ ‘try to do something to him.’ ”

On January 18, 2022, the juvenile court conducted the section 366.26 hearing. 

Mother had filed a section 388 petition on December 30, 2021, requesting unsupervised 

4 Mother filed an extraordinary writ petition, challenging the juvenile court’s 

detriment finding. We denied the writ petition. (Jenna L. v. The Superior Court of 

Merced County (Nov. 16, 2021, F083201) [nonpub. opn.].) 
7.

visits and offering several witnesses to support her request. She alleged the social worker 

was biased and did not make adequate efforts to help her reunify. The court denied the 

section 388 petition, stating the witnesses were all available at the time of the 18-month 

review hearing in August 2021.

Mother told the juvenile court she wanted to say something so that it was on the 

record. The court denied her request because she had counsel and told her to 

communicate through counsel. The court stated it was not inclined to allow statements 

but put mother in a break-out room so she could talk to her attorney. Mother’s attorney, 

Cindy Morse, told the court mother wanted it on the record that Morse and mother’s 

retained counsel, Jeffrey Tenenbaum, who represented mother from April 2020 to 

May 2021, did not follow her instructions. The following exchange occurred:

“THE COURT: So are you asking for—what? Other than it’s been 

placed on the record. 

“MS. MORSE: I’m not asking that she put it on the record. I’m 

telling you that’s what she wants. And if you don’t want her to, then deny 

it or grant her the ability.” 

“THE COURT: If that’s the extent of what she wants, then that’s 

been placed on the record that—

“THE MOTHER: It’s not, your Honor.

“THE COURT: Ma’am, this is not the forum for such complaints. 

If you have another matter that you desire, the Court would entertain it, but 

otherwise we’re ready to proceed on the [section 366.26] hearing.

“[THE MOTHER]: Your Honor, I do. So if you read the 

[section 388 petition], it says that there was a biased social worker. I asked 

Mr. Tenenbaum and I asked Ms. Morse to give the evidence that I am 

trying to present to you to prove that the social worker was biased. And 

anybody who has read the record has said the same thing.

“Additionally, [S.L.] has asked for a new attorney on numerous 

occasions. He—I was just recently tagged in an email to [minor’s counsel] 

asking her to file [a section 388 petition], and asking her to tell you that he 

wants to speak to you and that he is not being heard, and nobody is 
8.

listening to him. [S.L.] has called the CASA. [S.L.] has called the CASA 

supervisor. He’s not been able to get through to anybody.

“Debbie [Bennett (minor’s counsel)] is not responding to his email. 

I have the proof of the email because he tagged me in it. And [Ms. 

Bennett] is not responding to him. There’s no reason why she should not 

have allowed you to know that information, that he emailed her and is 

asking her—

“THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 

“The Court has noted that mother had a statement for the record. It’s 

now memorialized on the record. 

“And then, Ms. Bennett, any comments before the Court proceeds 

with the [section 366.26 hearing]?

“MS. BENNETT: The email that [mother] is talking about was 

never received by my office. Ms. Morse did supply me with a letter 

supposedly written by [S.L.] that the mother somehow had. We did reach 

out. We have not had a response. I’ve reached out to the caretaker. I have 

not had a response.”

“My concern is that previously in this case there was a supposed 

[section 388 petition] that was filed by [S.L.]. It was actually written by 

[mother], sent to Mr. F[]. Mr. F[.] gave it to [S.L.]. Then it was sent back 

to [mother]. Then it was sent to the Court. So my concern is the continued 

manipulation by the mother of [S.L.].

“And I would be submitting the matter, your Honor.”

During the section 366.26 phase of the hearing, mother submitted on the 

recommendation to order S.L. into a legal guardianship. However, she wanted a 

contested hearing regarding the recommended order for supervised visitation on the exit 

order. She proposed unsupervised visitation at the discretion of Mr. F., the proposed 

guardian. She wanted Mr. F. and S.L. to testify. It was explained to mother that S.L. was 

not available to testify so mother wanted the hearing continued until he was available. 

Bennett objected to S.L. testifying. He stated earlier in the afternoon that he did not want 

to appear in court and had nothing to tell the judge.
9.

The juvenile court confirmed through county counsel that the agency would 

continue to be involved in the case. The question was whether visitation should be 

supervised or unsupervised.

Mother testified she agreed to the legal guardianship and wanted Mr. F. to testify 

about visitation. Mr. F. believed S.L. could safely have unsupervised visitation with 

mother. However, he was unaware that S.L. was concerned mother might harm him if he 

went to see her in Oklahoma. He testified that mother prepared the section 388 petition 

for S.L. to sign and then filed it with the court.

The juvenile court ordered S.L. into a plan of legal guardianship and ordered a 

minimum of one hour of supervised visitation a month for mother and S.L. S.L. was 

allowed to continue telephone contact with mother as long as the conversations were 

appropriate. The court set a postpermanency plan review hearing for July 18, 2022.

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.)

By the time a dependency case reaches a section 366.26 hearing, there are few 

options available to the juvenile court. Indeed, “ ‘the sole purpose of the section 366.26 

hearing is to select and implement one of the listed permanent plans.’ ” (In re 

Christopher M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 155, 160.) The legislative preference is 

“for adoption over legal guardianship over long-term foster care.” (San Diego County 

Dept. of Social Services v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 882, 885.) 

Mother does not contend the juvenile court erred in selecting a legal guardianship 

as S.L.’s permanent plan. Nor could she object legitimately since she agreed to that 

option. Instead, she contends she asked Morse during their break-out session to ask 
10.

Mr. F. specific questions or to remove herself as counsel. Morse refused to do either. 

She claims she requested to ask questions of “the only witness,” presumably Mr. F., but 

was denied by the juvenile court. At the end of the hearing, she asserts, she told the court 

in so many words, “I just want to state for the record that my attorney has not been acting 

in my best interest and refused to remove herself as attorney. She has been negligent.” 

As evidence of this, mother points to a motion Morse filed on February 20, 2020, asking 

to be relieved as counsel, which she claims was granted by the court on March 30, 2022. 

Finally, mother contends S.L. asked to speak to the court but his attorney refused him. 

He also requested new counsel and was denied. The record does not support mother’s 

claims.

First, there is no evidence mother asked to question Mr. F. and was denied. Even 

had she made such a request, it would not have been granted since she had an attorney 

representing her. Nor is there evidence that S.L. wanted to address the court but was 

prevented from doing so by his attorney. Rather, according to his attorney, S.L. did not 

have anything he wanted to say to the court.

To the extent mother attempts to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

it would fail. There is no evidence her attorney was ineffective in her questioning of 

Mr. F. The sole focus of the evidentiary portion of the hearing was whether mother’s 

visitation with S.L. should be supervised or unsupervised. Mother’s attorney was able to 

elicit from Mr. F. that S.L. could safely visit with mother unsupervised. While the 

juvenile court ultimately ordered supervised visitation, mother’s attorney was able to 

produce evidence favorable to her position.

As to mother’s quoted statement above, it does not appear in the record. Mother 

did, however, convey her displeasure in her attorneys’ failure to present evidence that her 

social worker was biased. That evidence, however, was offered and rejected through the 

section 388 petition mother filed in December 2021. The court found the evidence was 

not new. Even if mother’s appeal could be construed as challenging the court’s denial of 
11.

her section 388 petition, it would fail not only on the grounds that the evidence was not 

new but because it would not serve S.L.’s best interest. S.L. had been out of mother’s 

care for two years and there was evidence she made manipulative statements and placed 

undue pressure on him when visits were unsupervised in the past. In addition, he did not 

feel safe with her.

We conclude mother has not raised any arguable issues stemming from the 

section 366.26 hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–842.) Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

This appeal is dismissed.