Court Opinion

ID: 9896923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:03:56.705867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:53.146592
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/14/23 In re I.A. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re I.A. et al., Persons Coming                            B329060
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                           (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                       Super. Ct. Nos. 19CCJP08048A, B, D, & E)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

Y.A.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County. Linda Sun, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

     John P. McCurley, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant

         No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
      This is an appeal by Mother Y.A. subject to the procedures
set out in In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. On December
17, 2019, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family
Services (Department) filed a petition under Welfare &
Institutions Code section 300 alleging that mother’s five children
were harmed and at risk of harm due to Mother and Father’s
history of domestic violence and both parents’ substance abuse.
The children were detained from Mother on November 18, 2020,
because of the parents’ ongoing domestic violence and because
Mother had allowed Father to live in the family home and have
unlimited access to the children. On January 19, 2021, the
juvenile court removed the children from Mother and ordered
family reunification services and monitored visits to the parents.
Mother’s case plan included individual therapy, domestic violence
classes and conjoint therapy with Father. In March 2021, the
children were placed together with the paternal aunt (a
prospective adoptive parent).
      At the 12-month review hearing on November 18, 2021, the
Department reported to the court that Mother had tested positive
for methamphetamine during the reporting period and her visits
with the children were inconsistent in that she had many no-
shows and did not call to cancel. The juvenile court found that
return of the children to parental custody would put them at
substantial risk of harm and terminated Mother’s services. The
court set a Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to
devise a permanent plan for the children.
      On February 14, 2023, Mother filed a section 388 petition
requesting that her family reunification services be reinstated
based on her completion of services. After a hearing on March
20, 2023, the juvenile court denied the petition, finding that

                                2
Mother had not met her burden to prove a change of
circumstances or that the requested order was in the minors’ best
interests. The court also found the children adoptable, ordered
adoption as the minors’ permanent plans, and terminated
parental rights. Permanent planning is still ongoing.
       Mother timely appealed.
       On August 16, 2023, counsel for Mother filed a no issue
brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. On
October 6, 2023, Mother filed a supplemental brief reciting her
efforts to parent her children. She has been sober since July 28,
2022, has participated in residential and outpatient treatment,
and is now in aftercare. She has learned to understand the
triggers that led to her drug use. Mother has also benefitted
greatly from the parenting and domestic violence classes. She
states she plans on “continuing to make positive changes in order
to have a better future.” And she ends by asking us to grant her
“the opportunity to have another chance at being a parent to my
children.”
       This court presumes a trial court judgment is correct.
(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Appellant
bears the burden of establishing error. Where an appellant does
not establish error, we may dismiss the appeal. (In re Sade C.
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Unlike in a criminal case, we have
no duty to conduct an independent review of the record in a
dependency case. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 841–
843.)
       Mother’s heartfelt statement has presented no arguable
issue calling into question any of the juvenile court’s findings or
orders.

                                 3
                          DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                                4