gno.law

In re K.E. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal · B260743 · 2015-05-20 · Unpublished

Area
dependency
Panel
Steven Z. Perren (author), Kenneth R. Yegan, Arthur Gilbert

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 5/20/15 In re K.E. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re K.E., et al., Persons Coming Under 2d Juv. No. B260743 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. J069602, J069603) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. T.E., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

T.E. (mother) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights to her minor children K.E. and L.E. and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) G.C. (father), the presumed father of L.E., appeals the same order as to L.E. only. Both parents also appeal the denial of their petitions to modify the court's prior order bypassing reunification services. (§ 388.) We appointed counsel to represent them on appeal. On February 23, 2015, counsel for father filed a brief in which she informed us that she had found no arguable issues. On April 1, 2015, mother's counsel 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. filed a brief raising no issues. We subsequently notified mother and father that they had 30 days within which to submit any contentions they wished us to consider, and that their appeals would be dismissed as abandoned in the absence of any arguable issues. Neither parent has presented any issues for the court's consideration. Because no claim of error or other defect has been raised in this matter, father's appeal filed on December 16, 2014, and mother's appeal filed on December 22, 2014, are dismissed as abandoned. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844-845; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

2 Bruce A. Young, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura ______________________________ Nancy Rabin Brucker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant T.E. Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant G.C. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cites, in this corpus