In re Vera M. CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/11/24 In re Vera M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 VERA M., a Person Coming B335424
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super Ct. No. 21CCJP03165A)
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARISSA W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from findings and orders of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Mark A. Davis, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Marissa W., in pro. per.; and Aida Aslanian, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
Both Marissa W. (Mother) and E.M. (Father) appealed from
the trial court order terminating their parental rights for Vera
M., who is now five years old. Counsel representing Mother and
Father each filed briefs identifying no arguable issue for appeal
consistent with In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 843–844
(Phoenix H.). Thereafter, Mother filed a supplemental brief and
Father did not. Consequently, this court dismissed Father’s
appeal as abandoned. We now address whether Mother raised
arguable issues for appeal in her supplemental brief.
On August 30, 2021, the trial court asserted jurisdiction
over Vera finding that Mother’s mental health, substance abuse,
and failure to protect from Father’s domestic abuse presented a
risk to Vera. The trial court also asserted jurisdiction over Vera
due to sustained allegations based on Father’s conduct. At
disposition, the trial court removed Vera from both parents and
ordered family reunification services. Mother’s case plan
included a parenting program, individual counseling, a substance
abuse program with aftercare, drug and alcohol testing, a 12-step
program, a domestic violence program with a support group,
mental health counseling, a psychological assessment, a
psychiatric evaluation, and an order to take psychotropic
medication.
On January 10, 2022, the trial court ordered that Vera’s
maternal grandmother was to be a co-educational rights holder
for Vera.
On March 1, 2022, the trial court proceeded with the six-
month review hearing where it continued Mother’s reunification
services after finding Mother minimally complied with her case
plan. The trial court did not return Vera to Mother’s care.
On September 21, 2022, the trial court presided over the 12-
2
month review hearing, and found Mother’s case plan progress to
be unsubstantial. The trial court again ruled that Vera would
not be returned to Mother. Instead, the trial court terminated
Mother’s reunification services and set a permanency planning
hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
On January 18, 2023, after a permanency planning hearing, the
trial court found notice to be sufficient for Mother, but not for
Father. Other than addressing notice, the trial court did not
proceed with the hearing on that day. Thereafter, the trial court
continued the matter multiple times while continuing to note
that notice was proper for Mother.
On February 26, 2024, the trial court conducted the
permanency planning hearing. Both the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services and Vera’s counsel
asked the trial court to terminate parental rights. Mother was
not present for the hearing, but Mother’s counsel objected to the
termination of parental rights and asked the court to order a
legal guardianship. Father was present for the hearing.
However, the court briefly removed Father when he interrupted
the hearing with vulgarities before ultimately allowing Father to
listen to the conclusion of the hearing on his counsel’s phone
while Father was muted. Father’s counsel objected to the
termination of Father’s parental rights and offered argument on
his behalf. After considering argument and weighing the
evidence, the trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s
parental rights.
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.
3
(In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 (Sade C.).) 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.)
Here, on August 8, 2024, Mother filed a supplemental brief
after her counsel filed a Phoenix H. brief. Mother argues that she
has turned around her life and completed an inpatient domestic
violence program, among other important changes she has made.
Mother asks for return of Vera because of these changes. While
commendable that Mother indicates she has completed programs,
a child cannot be returned to a parent’s care in a permanency and
planning hearing. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630.)
Thus, Mother does not present an arguable issue for appeal on
this front. In addition, Mother also argues that she did not have
notice of hearings beginning in November 2023, but the record
indicates that notice was sufficient to Mother in January 2023 for
the permanency planning hearing. Finally, Mother has not
presented any arguable issue regarding any potential parental-
benefit exception. (Id. at p. 632.) 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:
STRATTON, P. J. WILEY, J.
4