In re M.K. CA5

── In re M.K. CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 In re M.K. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re M.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES F090821 AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 24JP-00090-B) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION ANNA K., Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Anna K., in pro per.; and Shaylah Padgett-Weibel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. -ooOoo- In this juvenile dependency case, Anna K. (mother) appeals from unspecified orders made at a hearing conducted on November 4, 2025, as to her minor child M.K. * Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J. 1.  After reviewing the record, mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel informed this court that she could find no arguable issues to raise on mother’s behalf. This court granted mother leave to file a letter brief setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844.) Mother filed a letter brief but has failed to make such a showing, as she has raised no issues related to the November 4, 2025 hearing. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A Dependency Petition is Filed on Behalf of M.K. and Her Sibling, A.K. In August 2024, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) filed a dependency petition on behalf of newborn M.K. alleging she came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1)1 because of mother’s inability to protect her or provide adequate care to her for various reasons including substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues.2 Jesus M. was listed as M.K.’s alleged father in the petition and has remained an alleged father throughout the underlying proceedings. He is not a party to this appeal.3 The petition also alleged that M.K.’s older sibling, A.K., came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. At the time the petition was filed, A.K. resided with her legal 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 The petition also alleged M.K. came within the court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (g), but this allegation was later dismissed. 3 Jesus M. appealed from the November 4, 2025 orders separately. His appointed appellate counsel filed a Phoenix H. brief, and he thereafter filed a letter brief. After reviewing Jesus M.’s letter brief, this court determined he failed to make a good cause showing that an arguable issue existed and dismissed the appeal. (In re M.K. (Mar. 5, 2026, F090769) [nonpub. opn.].) 2. guardian, who is also both children’s maternal grandmother. A.K. is not a subject of this appeal. At the time the petition was filed, M.K. had been detained from mother’s care, and at the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordere