In re E.K.
Filed 5/5/06 In re E.K. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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)
----
| In re E.K. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.K., Defendant and Appellant. |
C050497
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD222228 & JD222229)
|
L.K., father of the minor E.K., appeals from the judgment of disposition. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 358, 360, 395.)[1] Appellant contends the juvenile court erred in excluding testimony from a family law mediator, and that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's findings that (1) there was a substantial danger to the minor if returned to his custody; and (2) it was in the minor's best interests to award sole legal custody to the minor's mother. We affirm.
Facts
In April 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) removed the minors, E.K., age 3, and A.K., age 12, from parental custody based upon allegations of appellant's ongoing physical abuse of A.K. and his history of domestic violence in the home toward G.K., the minors' mother, in the minors' presence.[2]
G.K. left appellant in 2004 because of appellant's violence and moved to the east coast. Appellant subsequently filed for divorce. As a part of the family law proceedings, a mediation was conducted regarding child custody. Appellant was granted full legal and physical custody in March 2005 and G.K. returned the minors to California. Upon their return, G.K. and A.K. reported appellant's abuse and following an investigation, DHHS filed a petition in the juvenile court.
Appellant insisted he was the biological father of both minors. He denied he physically abused A.K., asserting A.K. was brainwashed by G.K. and that allegations of abuse were completely fabricated by G.K.
When interviewed, A.K., who was very fearful of appellant, reiterated her claims of physical abuse by appellant and said that G.K. and appellant had frequent arguments which sometimes led to physical altercations. A.K. stated that appellant made her sleep in a closet and would buy things for E.K. but not for her. A.K. said appellant gave â€
