In re Sarah S
Filed 3/30/06 In re Sarah S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SARAH S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WAYDE S., Defendant and Appellant. |
F048884
(Super. Ct. No. BJP015489)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Nancy C. Staggs, Commissioner.
Gino deSolenni, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
David Prentice, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Wayde S., father of 16-year-old Sarah S., appeals from the denial of a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition urging the court to vacate jurisdictional findings declaring Sarah a dependent child. Wayde S. contends that his attorney erred in not contesting jurisdiction. He contends on appeal the court abused its discretion in not granting the section 388 petition and that insufficient evidence supports both the jurisdictional and dispositional findings in any event. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]
Sarah was placed in custody by the Madera County Department of Social Services (Department) on November 8, 2004, after the Department received a referral that Sarah had been hit with a belt on her legs and locked in her bedroom by appellant. Sarah stated appellant had hit her with a belt for sneaking out to meet her adult boyfriend and skipping school. There was no history of abuse in the home. The police recommended no charges be filed and that Sarah be returned to appellant's custody.
A detention report was filed and the juvenile court ordered Sarah removed from appellant's custody on November 12. At a December 1st hearing the matter was set for contested jurisdiction, then continued numerous times while the Department tried to determine if Sarah should and could be placed with her mother or grandmother out of state. In the course of these hearings, appellant expressed concern that he was unable to miss more work to attend so many status-type hearings; on January 21 the court â€
