Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: M.F. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.F., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
O P I N I O N
A.F. (mother) appealed from an order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26) to her three children. After reviewing the entire record, mother's court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court she had found no arguable issues to raise in this appeal. Counsel requested, and this court granted, leave for mother to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.)
Mother has since submitted a letter describing her current circumstances and asking for another chance to be a parent to her children. Her letter does not address the proceedings in the trial, let alone set forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error does exist. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) We observe in this regard that an appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is up to an appellant to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant does not do so, the appeal should be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Here, mother does not raise any claim of error or other defect against the termination order from which she appeals. Thus, we have no reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: F059494
Decided: June 23, 2010
Court: Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)