legal news


Register | Forgot Password

E.R. v. Sup. Ct.

E.R. v. Sup. Ct.
02:24:2007

E


E.R. v. Sup. Ct.


Filed 2/21/07  E.R. v. Sup. Ct. CA4/2


 


 


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


 


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


 


FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


 


DIVISION TWO







E.R.,


            Petitioner,


v.


THE SUPERIOR COURT OF


SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,


            Respondent;


SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,


            Real Party in Interest.



            E041773


            (Super.Ct.Nos. J209749, J209750, &


           J210288*)


            OPINION



            ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ.  Gary L. Vincent and Deborah A. Daniel, Temporary Judges.†  Petition denied.


            Monica Cazares for Petitioner.


            No appearance for Respondent.


            Ruth E. Stringer, Acting County Counsel, and Jacqueline Carey-Wilson, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.


            Petitioner E.R. (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a),[1] regarding her children, M., D., and C. (the children).  Mother contends that:  1) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that M. and D. came within Welfare and Institutions Code[2] section 300, subdivision (e); 2) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that C. came within section 300, subdivision (j); and 3) the court erred in denying her reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b).  We deny mother's writ petition.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


            On February 13, 2006, M., who was six months old at the time, was taken to the hospital after mother reported that he had fallen off a bed, onto a carpeted floor, for the second time.  (He allegedly fell off the bed the first time two weeks earlier, but was not taken to the hospital then since no injury was suspected.)  When mother found him, he was not breathing.  M. was taken to Pomona Valley Hospital, where a computerized tomography (CT) scan showed that he sustained subdural hemorrhages (bleeding on the brain).  Pomona Valley Hospital initiated a child abuse report.  M. was then transferred to Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC) for a higher level of care.  While at CHOC, M. was evaluated by a neurologist, an ophthalmologist, and the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Team.  The neurologist who examined M. opined that the cause of his injuries was â€





Description Petitioner (mother) filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38.1(a), regarding her children, M., D., and C. (the children). Mother contends that: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that M. and D. came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (e); 2) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that C. came within section 300, subdivision (j); and 3) the court erred in denying her reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b). Court deny mother's writ petition.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale