legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Sarah M.

In re Sarah M.
04:27:2006

In re Sarah M.






Filed 4/25/06 In re Sarah M. CA2/1






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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






SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT






DIVISION ONE

















In re SARAH M. et al.,


Persons Coming Under the Juvenile


Court Law.



B186485


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. BK00808)



LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


ALBERTO M.,


Defendant and Appellant.




APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn Kading Martinez, Commissioner. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.


Lisa A. DiGrazia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Liana Serobian, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


__________________


INTRODUCTION


Alberto M. appeals from an order declaring his two minor daughters, 16-year-old Sarah M. and 14-year-old Alison M., to be dependent children of the court under subdivisions (a), (b) and (j) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,[1] and ordering that he have no visitation with his daughters pending further order of the court. He challenges certain of the jurisdictional findings and the no visitation order. We agree that the challenged jurisdictional findings are not supported by the evidence and reverse them. We affirm the remainder of the order, including the no visitation order.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


On July 14, 2005, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a section 300 petition alleging that Sarah and Alison were at risk of serious physical harm due to physical abuse by appellant (subd. (a)); that appellant was unable to care for the girls due to the physical abuse, his use of illicit drugs, and a prior intervention by the juvenile court (subd. (b))[2]; and that each girl was at risk for abuse due to appellant's abuse of her sibling (subd. (j)).


According to the detention report, on the evening of July 11, 2005, San Pedro police received a 911 call from someone who observed appellant hit Sarah with his hands, remove his belt and hit her several times with the belt, then drag her by the hair into his car. An investigating officer was told that appellant also hit Alison with his belt and dragged her into his car. The officers located Sarah in Moorpark at the home of a paternal aunt, Natalie C. Alison was with a paternal aunt, Annette M., in San Pedro.


In a police interview, Sarah denied that appellant hit her with a belt but stated that appellant hit Alison with a belt. Sarah said she got into appellant's car after he punched her repeatedly about the body. Police observed marks near Sarah's left eye. Alison denied that appellant hit her with a belt during the incident but claimed he had hit her with a belt two days earlier. Police observed bruises on her legs.


The Children's Social Worker (CSW) interviewed Sarah and Alison. Sarah stated that she and Alison had been living with Annette M. for the past five months, although their maternal aunt, Kimberly C., who lived in San Bernardino, was their legal guardian. Appellant maintained telephone contact with their aunts to check up on the girls.


On the evening of July 8, Sarah left Annette M.'s home. She and her cousin Rebecca spent the weekend with various friends. She did not tell her aunt or other family members where she was. When appellant found out she had been gone for a few days, he located her at a friend's home in San Pedro. Sarah and Alison[3] went outside, where appellant was waiting for them. He was screaming at them. He took off his belt and tried to hit them with it, but missed. They got into his car, at which time appellant began punching them.


Alison told the CSW that appellant did not hit her on July 11. He did hit her with a belt on July 9, after she spent the night at a friend's home and did not come back as scheduled.


The CSW was unable to contact appellant but interviewed Annette M. and Kimberly C. Annette stated that appellant screamed at the girls and made demeaning statements to them, was a frequent drug user and had an extensive criminal history. Kimberly said she had been raising Sarah and Annette since 2002, when appellant left them with her. She reported physical abuse of the girls by appellant, describing him as very volatile. She also stated that he had a criminal history, possibly involving murder.


The CSW was unable to find any documents showing that Kimberly C. was the girls' legal guardian. The CSW detained the girls and placed them in foster care.


After a detention hearing, at which the juvenile court found a prima facie case for detention, DCFS filed a first amended petition. This added, under subdivision (b) of section 300, allegations of emotional abuse by yelling at the girls and calling them names. It also added allegations as to appellant's criminal history, including convictions for assault, possession of a controlled substance, driving with a suspended license, possession of a loaded firearm, corporal injury on a spouse and murder.


For the August 9, 2005 jurisdiction/disposition report, the CSW interviewed Sarah, who stated that appellant sometimes abused her physically, hitting her on the legs with his hand or a belt. As to the July 11 incident, she explained that she left home on Friday with her cousin because she was mad at appellant; she did not like his girlfriend and was mad that he was still with her. She did not go home that weekend or tell appellant where she was. At some point Alison joined her. Then appellant came to get them. Once they got in his car, appellant began hitting her on the legs with his belt. He yelled at her, telling her that she was just like her mother. He tried to hit Alison but could not reach her. Sarah added, â€





Description A decision regarding declaring dependent children of the court.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale