Filed 7/21/10
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re KARLA C., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN
MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
P.E.,
Defendant
and Appellant,
G.C.
Defendant
and Respondent.
A126685
(San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. 79641)
Story continued from part II…..
The
juvenile court may well have had discretion to request an evaluation of
Father's home, even if not statutorily required. Contrary to Mother's assertion, the court's
statement at the disposition hearing does not indicate that the court believed
it was prohibited from requesting an assessment of Father's home before making
the placement, but only that there was no requirement that it do so. Rather, the court expressed its confidence in
Father's repeated reports regarding his home, his employment, and the
availability of both therapy and parenting classes in Peru. In this
case, while there would have been no abuse of discretion in ordering further
evaluation before placement, we conclude that the court properly
determined it was not required to obtain a home study before it placed Karla with
Father.
Did the Court Abuse its Discretion by Placing Karla
with Father Without Ordering Measures to Enforce its Continuing Jurisdictionâ€
| Description | The juvenile court found that Karla C. (Karla) was at risk of continuing sexual abuse at the hands of a stepfather in the home of her mother, P.E. (Mother), and that Mother had failed to protect Karla from the abuse. The court took jurisdiction over Karla under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d) and removed Karla from Mother's physical custody.[1] At the conclusion of a contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court decided to place Karla, at least temporarily, with her father, G.C. (Father), a Peruvian national who lives in Peru. Mother appeals from the juvenile court's disposition orders, contesting the ordered placement of Karla with Father outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. Because it is not clear from the record before us that the juvenile court will have the ability to enforce its continuing jurisdiction over Karla after placement in Peru, we reverse the order and remand for a further hearing to determine the enforceability of the juvenile court's jurisdiction in Peru, and to allow the court to then impose any measures that may be appropriate to ensure that its jurisdiction is maintained. |
| Rating |
