Court Opinion

ID: 9403780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 17:04:39.406526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.323267
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/21/23 In re Victoria R. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Victoria R. et al., Persons                             B323066
 Coming Under the Juvenile
 Court Law.

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                            (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                        Super. Ct. Nos. 18LJJP00818A–B)
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 T.B.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Stephanie M. Davis, Commissioner. Appeal
dismissed.
     Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               _________________________________
      T.B., the mother of Victoria R. and Elizabeth W., (Mother)
appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying her petitions for
modification under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388
and appointing a legal guardianship for her children. We dismiss
the appeal pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835
(Phoenix H.) and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sade C.).
      On December 11, 2018, the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a
section 300 petition on behalf of then five-year-old Victoria and
three-year-old Elizabeth. The petition alleged that Mother had a
history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of drugs and
alcohol, and that she had left the children with their maternal
great-aunt, N.B., without making a plan for their ongoing care
and supervision. At the detention hearing, the children were
detained from Mother and placed with N.B. under DCFS’s
supervision. The children remained in N.B.’s care throughout the
dependency proceedings.
      At the May 8, 2019 jurisdictional and dispositional hearing,
at which no parents appeared, the juvenile court found that
notice had been given as required by law. The court sustained
the petition as alleged, declared the children dependents of the
court under section 300, subdivision (b), and removed the
children from parental custody. The court granted Mother
monitored visitation and reunification services, including a full
drug and alcohol program, weekly drug testing, parenting
education, individual counseling, and conjoint counseling with
the children. The court bypassed reunification services for

1     Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references
are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                2
Victoria’s presumed father, who was currently incarcerated, and
Elizabeth’s alleged father, whose whereabouts were unknown.
      As of the six-month review hearing, the children were
thriving in the care of N.B., and were closely bonded to her.
Mother rarely visited the children, and made no effort to comply
with her reunification services. DCFS’s attempts to contact
Mother had been unsuccessful, and her whereabouts were
unknown. At the December 13, 2019 six-month review hearing,
the juvenile court found that Mother had not made substantial
progress with her case plan, terminated her reunification
services, and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanency
planning hearing.
      Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the section 366.26 hearing
was not held until January 15, 2021. As of that date, N.B.
continued to provide the children with a nurturing home
environment, and they were doing well in her care. N.B.
expressed that she wanted to be appointed the children’s legal
guardian to ensure their well-being, but she was not comfortable
with the termination of parental rights given their young ages.
Mother’s visits with the children had been infrequent and
inconsistent, she still had not participated in any services, and
her whereabouts remained unknown. At the January 15, 2021
section 366.26 hearing, at which Mother did not appear, the
juvenile court found that notice to Mother was proper, and
ordered legal guardianship as the children’s permanent plan.
The court continued the hearing to address issues related to the
children’s respective fathers.
      On July 15, 2021, Mother filed a section 388 petition,
requesting that the juvenile court reinstate her reunification
services and vacate the section 366.26 hearing. Mother alleged

                                3
that she had enrolled in a parenting education course, had been
involved in the proceedings, and had shown a willingness to
engage in services. She also alleged that it was in the children’s
best interest to reunify with her given her newfound commitment
to services. On July 21, 2021, the juvenile court denied Mother’s
petition without a hearing on the grounds that it did not state
new evidence or a change of circumstances, and that the relief
sought did not promote the children’s best interests.
       On July 29, 2021, Mother filed a second section 388 petition
that included the prior allegations, and added a new allegation
that she had completed a four-hour parenting education course
and a four-hour drug and alcohol course. She also requested the
children be returned to her care. On the same date, the juvenile
court denied the second petition, again finding that Mother had
failed to show new evidence or a change of circumstances, or that
the requested relief was in the children’s best interests.
       At the July 29, 2021 section 366.26 hearing, at which
Mother appeared by phone and was represented by counsel, the
juvenile court found that notice to the parents was proper.
Mother’s counsel requested that the matter be set for a contested
hearing to consider the beneficial parental relationship exception,
or alternatively, that the order for legal guardianship allow
Mother to receive medical updates for the children and increased
visitation. The court denied the requests, explaining that the
beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply where, as
here, parental rights were not being terminated. The court also
stated that the legal guardian would be responsible for deciding
whether to share the children’s medical information with Mother,
and that the current order for monitored visits, a minimum of
nine hours per week, was reasonable and appropriate. The court

                                4
found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children were
adoptable but living with a relative who was unable or unwilling
to adopt them, that it would be detrimental to the children to
remove them from their relative, and that a legal guardianship
was in their best interests. The court ordered a legal
guardianship for the children, and appointed N.B. as their
guardian. Having received the letters of guardianship, the court
terminated jurisdiction.
      Mother filed an appeal from the juvenile court’s orders
denying her two section 388 petitions and granting a legal
guardianship for the children. 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 p. 843–844.) On March 29, 2023, Mother filed a
one-page letter brief in which she asserted that her rights under
the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated,
and that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile
court’s actions and decisions.
      This court presumes a trial court judgment is correct.
(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) An
appellant 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 an alleged violation of her constitutional rights.

                                 5
She also 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.

                                           VIRAMONTES, J.

We concur:

      GRIMES, Acting P. J.

      WILEY, J.

                                 6