In re Scout D.

Filed 8/24/06 In re Scout D. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Stephanie D., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court adjudging the minors dependent children and removing them from parental custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 360, 395.)^[1] Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and insufficient evidence to support the removal order. We disagree and will affirm the orders.

Background

On or about June 9, 2005, six-year-old R.D. took a hunting knife from inside his house, went outside, and stabbed himself in his right eye. Appellant did not take R.D. to the hospital for medical attention until 24 to 72 hours later. R.D.'s eye was infected and the globe was ruptured. He was hospitalized and underwent two surgeries.

On June 14, 2005, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed dependency petitions on behalf of six-year-old R.D., four-year-old C.D. and 10-month-old S.D. The petition filed on behalf of R.D. alleged that R.D. came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b) (risk of serious physical harm based on failure to supervise or protect). The petition alleged that the incident resulting in R.D.'s injury and appellant's delay in seeking medical attention was a result of appellant's unreasonable or neglectful acts or omissions. The petitions filed on behalf of C.D. and S.D. alleged C.D. and S.D. came within section 300, subdivision (j) (abuse or neglect of a sibling with substantial risk the minor will be abused or neglected), based on the incident wherein R.D. stabbed himself in the eye and appellant delayed in seeking medical attention.

The three petitions alleged that the minors came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b) because appellant suffers from psychiatric and/or emotional problems which render her incapable of providing adequate care and supervision and that appellant has an alcohol abuse problem from which she has failed or refused to rehabilitate and which impairs her judgment and renders her incapable of providing care and supervision.

The petitions filed on behalf of C.D. and R.D. also alleged that their father, J.S., suffers from psychiatric and/or emotional problems that render him incapable of providing adequate care and supervision and that cause J.S. to be verbally and physically assaultive, that J.S. has a substance abuse problem from which he has failed or refused to rehabilitate and which impairs his judgment and renders him incapable of providing care and supervision, and that J.S. and appellant have engaged in ongoing incidents of domestic violence in front of C.D. and R.D. The petition filed on behalf of S.D. alleged that his father, G.R., and appellant have engaged in ongoing incidents of domestic violence in front of S.D.

The three minors were detained after a detention hearing. A contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing was held on September 7 and 8, 2005. Prior to the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, J.S. checked himself into a mental health facility. Thereafter, J.S. was released and taken into custody on an arrest warrant. At the time of the hearing, J.S. was incarcerated. G.R. had not been involved with appellant since December 2004.

At the conclusion of the combined hearing, the juvenile court found the minors were children described by subdivisions (b) and (j) of section 300, due to â€