Filed 2/13/15 In re S.Z. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.Z. et al

. , Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

TULARE CO UNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. MELISSA Z.,

Defendant and Appellant. F0 70097

(Super. Ct. Nos. JJV060010A, JJV060010C

& JJV060010D )

OPINION

THE COURT * APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juli et L. Boccone, Judge. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Levy, Acti ng P.J., Detjen , J., and Franson , J.2

Melissa appealed from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst . Code, § 366.26) 1 as to her three daughters, 10

- year

- old S.Z., eight

- year

- old
C.S. , and five

- year

- old E.S. After reviewing the juvenile court record, Melissa’s court

appointed counsel informed this court he could find no arguable issues to raise on
Melis sa ’s behalf. This court granted Melissa 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 .). )
Melissa submitted a letter in whi ch she cites favorable evidence in the record reflecting her completion of various court

- ordered services such as parenting classes, drug treatment and aftercare . She also references letters of support from her pastor and
other church members. She conten ds she completed all her case plan requirements and asks this court to “overlook” her conduct and recognize where the juvenile court erred.
We conclude Melissa failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguab le 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 September 2010 by the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) after the police found then six

- year

- old S.Z., four

- year

- old C.S. and 21

- month

- old E.S. in the bedroom with Melissa who was smoking marijuana with David , the father of C.S. and E.S. The police found a bout half a
p ound of marijuana in the children’s dresser and a glass pipe in Melissa’s purse. The agency filed a petition, alleging Melissa and David’s drug abuse endangered the children and that prior services had failed to resolve the problem. In October 2010, the juvenile

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3

court adjudged the children dependents and ordered family reunification services for
Melissa. The children were placed in foster care. Melissa was provided 12 months of reunification services but made minimal progress. Though she completed dr ug treatment she continued to relapse. In addition, the children had significant behavioral problems, necessitating multiple placements.
Melissa was in denial about their behavior and declined to take responsibility for her part in causing it.
In Octo ber 2011, the juvenile court terminated Melissa’s reunification services and in April 2012 ordered S.Z. and C.S. into a permanent placement plan with a relative care provider and E.S. into a permanent living arrangement with her care provider. By Septembe r 2012, the children were living together in the relative ’s home. S.Z. and C.S. had elected not to visit Melissa and had not done so since May 2012. In January 2013,
E.S. stated she did not want to visit Melissa either.
The children remained with the relative care provider until May 2013 when the agency removed them and placed them in a foster home. The agency determined this move was in the children’s best interests because their disruptive behavior had not stabilized and the care provider reported t hat Melissa was harassing her and her daughter and they felt threatened. In January 2014, the children were moved to a new placement because their care providers were willing to adopt C.S. and E.S. but not S.Z. and were not willing to participate in ser vices to assist in stabilizing S.Z. The agency moved the children so as to keep them together. In March 2014, the juvenile court granted the agency’s request to conduct a section 366.26 hearing to consider a permanent plan of adoption for the children with their new care provider s . In its report for the hearing, the agency informed the court that4

the children had not visited Melissa in two years and that the care providers wanted to adopt the children

. In August 2014, Melissa appeared at the section 366.26 he a ring and her attorney requested a bonding study which the juvenile court denied. Her attorney also argued the agency failed to show the children were likely to be adopted. The court , however , found that the children were likely to be adopted a nd that none of the exceptions to adoption applied and terminated Melissa’s parental rights. 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 r a ise claims of reversible 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 juvenil e 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 children are likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must termin ate 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, Melissa did not argue at the section 366.26 hearing that any of the exceptions to adoption applied . Further, the substance of her appeal is an attempt to have this court review evidence related to her compliance with her reunification plan. However, it is not our role as a reviewing court to reexamine the evidence. ( In re Walter
E . (1992) 13 Cal.App.4th 125, 139

- 140.) Further, the evidence Melissa cites was reviewed by the juvenile court at hearings conducted in 2011. The court’s findings and5

orders f rom those hearings are now final. ( Steve J. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 798, 811

- 812.) Because Melissa failed to show good cause that an arguable
issue exists , we dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION This appeal is dismissed.