In re C.G.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
In re C.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.W., Defendant and Appellant. | C051664 (Super. |
B.W. (appellant), the mother of C.G. and X.G. (the minors), appeals from the orders and judgment of the juvenile court declaring the minors to be dependents of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361, 395.)[1] Appellant contends the juvenile court incorrectly applied the presumption contained in section 355.1, subdivision (d) (presumption that the minor is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court), when it sustained the petitions and erred by removing the minors from her care. We shall affirm.
FACTUAL
In September 2005, Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) filed juvenile dependency petitions concerning 12-year-old C.G. and eight-year-old X.G., alleging there was a substantial risk they would suffer serious physical harm as a result of appellant's failure to adequately protect them. In support of the petitions, it was alleged that appellant had allowed her boyfriend, a registered sex offender, to move into her home. According to the petitions, the boyfriend had been convicted of assault with intent to commit rape but denied he committed the offense and had not participated in a sexual offender treatment program. Appellant did not believe the boyfriend had committed the offense and minimized the risk of having him in the home with the minors.
According to the social worker's jurisdictional and dispositional report, family maintenance services had been offered to appellant and her boyfriend beginning in July 2005 when the boyfriend was released from serving time in state prison on a parole violation. Although appellant and her boyfriend had complied with voluntary services, the Department concluded that the situation posed too high of a risk, resulting in the filing of the petitions.
Appellant informed the social worker that she and the boyfriend were planning to get married when her divorce became final and that her boyfriend planned to adopt the minors. She acknowledged that she did not see the boyfriend as posing a threat to the minors. Neither minor reported any abuse by the boyfriend.
The boyfriend was interviewed by the social worker. Despite having pled to the offense resulting in the conviction requiring him to register as a sex offender, he â€
