Filed 9/16/14 In re Javon C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 JAVON C., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B255161

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK77404)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

TO THE COURT:*

Justin C. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental 

rights over his son Javon C. (minor) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 

 

* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., and FERNS, J.†

† Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
2

366.26. 1 We dismiss the appeal pursuant to In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 

because father has not raised any arguable issues on appeal.

FACTS

The minor was born in December 2006.

From February 2007 to January 2008, father was given family reunification 

services and family maintenance services in connection with the minor’s half-brother, 

Korey C. (Korey). A court granted father custody of Korey and terminated the case with 

a Family Law Order.2

The Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral 

regarding an incident on October 14, 2011. While the minor was riding on a bus with his 

mother J.E. (mother) and father, father hit the minor in the mouth when he asked for a 

snack. It caused his lip to bleed.

A social worker interviewed the minor and Korey. They stated that they lived 

with father and mother, that father regularly hit them, and that mother “never says 

anything[.]” When Father was interviewed, he denied hitting or grabbing the minor. 

Instead, father claimed he put his arm in front of the minor to prevent him from falling 

off his seat when the bus came to a stop. Mother was also interviewed. She disclosed 

that she had been arrested for shoplifting and child endangerment, she had been 

diagnosed with depression and taking anti-depressants for 15 years, and she had been 

hospitalized for suicidal ideation when she was 17 years old. Mother denied that father 

hit the minor. According to her, father grabbed the minor by the shirt and told him to 

“calm down and act right on the bus” after he whined for a snack. Both father and 

mother suggested that the minor had caused his lip to bleed by biting it. Contrary to what 

the children said, father and mother denied that the two of them were residing in the same 

household.

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated.

2

The record indicates that Korey is about a year older than the minor.
3

The minor was detained and later placed in foster care with Mae P. The juvenile 

court granted the parents reunification services.

The Department filed a petition on behalf of the minor pursuant to section 300,

subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) It alleged, inter alia, that the minor was at risk of physical 

harm because father hit him on the mouth, inflicting a laceration; father had a history of 

drug use and was a current user of marijuana, which rendered him incapable of providing 

regular care and supervision; and father hit Korey on prior occasions.

Subsequently, the minor was placed with Kelly A.

On March 3, 2012, father met with a social worker and was given referrals to 

court-ordered services and a bus pass.

Father failed to drug test as ordered, and he did not provide social workers with 

updates on his programs. According to Kelly A., father visited only eight times from 

March to October 2012. His interaction with the minor was minimal, and he spent one 

entire visit using a computer. During another one of his visits, he fell asleep. Kelly A. 

told a social worker that father said he was not going to try to regain custody of the 

minor, and he was not going to do anything that the juvenile court or the Department was 

asking him to do.

On March 22, 2012, the juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition and 

granted the parents monitored visitation.

Over the course of the year, a social worker made telephone calls to father and 

encouraged him to participate in court-ordered programs. He did not return those calls. 

He was a no show at drug tests on October 29, 2012, November 9, 2012, November 20, 

2012, and December 4, 2012. He failed to provide proof that he participated in any 

court-ordered programs.

On February 13, 2013, the juvenile court found that father was in partial 

compliance with the case plan and terminated his reunification services. Later, it 

terminated mother’s services, too.

A section 366.26 permanency hearing was held on March 17, 2014. The 

Department’s reports indicated that the parents did not visit the minor regularly. Though 
4

there were no problems during the visits, they were not consistent enough to establish a 

parent/child relationship. At the hearing, father’s counsel represented that the minor 

stated that he enjoyed visits with father. Based on that, counsel stated, “I would argue 

that it would not be in [the minor’s] best interest to have father’s parental rights 

terminated.” The juvenile court found that the minor was adoptable, and terminated the 

parental rights.

THIS APPEAL

After father filed this appeal, we appointed counsel to represent him. After 

examining the record, father’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 

47 Cal.4th 835, indicating an inability to find an arguable issue. On May 13, 2014, we 

advised father that he had 30 days in which to submit a letter or brief setting forth any 

arguments he wished for us to consider.

On June 20, 2014, father submitted a letter stating that the trial court did not verify 

the reports submitted by the Department regarding his visitations; he visited the minor 

more often than was reported; he can verify his visitations through cell phone records and 

pictures; the Department did not make reasonable efforts to confirm his visitations; and 

his children’s guardian committed perjury when characterizing father’s relationships and 

visitations with his children. In addition, father argued that he should have custody of the 

minor because they have a strong bond.

DISCUSSION

“An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the 

appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or 

other defect [citation], and ‘present argument and authority on each point made’ 

[citations]. If he does not, he may, in the court’s discretion, be deemed to have 

abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that event, it may order dismissal. [Citation.]” (In 

re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
5

Father has failed to raise claims of reversible error, and he has failed to show any 

defect. In addition, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

order terminating parental rights.

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.