Filed 5/3/06 In re Dakota E. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re DAKOTA E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTHA W., Defendant and Appellant. |
F048758
(Super. Ct. No. 508414)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Nancy Barnett Williamsen, Commissioner.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Michael H. Krausnick, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
The juvenile court sustained a petition with allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] as to Dakota E. Martha W. (mother) asserts the section 300 petition failed to state a cause of action for jurisdiction, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional finding. Mother also contends there is insufficient evidence to support the dispositional order removing the child. We find no merit in these contentions and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2005, child protective services (CPS) received a referral that mother recently had given birth to Dakota. The referral was generated because, approximately 10 years earlier, CPS had removed three children from mother's custody. A social worker responding to the current referral spoke to mother and Mr. E. (father). Mother said she had suffered from mental health issues since her older children were removed, and she acknowledged past physical abuse and neglect of those children on the part of herself and her then husband, Mr. B.[2] Father acknowledged that he had a past criminal history and had past domestic violence arrests,[3] but he had completed a 52-week domestic violence course required by the court.
Mother and father were offered voluntary services, which mother accepted but father declined stating he â€
