>In re KARLA C.,















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)

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.

I. Statutory Framework

The jurisdictional findings which brought Karla under the court's
dependency protection are undisputed, and the only question before us is the
propriety of the court's dispositional order which would place Karla with
Father.

Before discussing the facts of this case, we first address the governing
statute. â€