In re E.M.
H.M. (mother) appeals from the dependency court’s orders declaring E.M. a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (c),[1] and removing E.M. from mother’s custody pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c). Mother contends substantial evidence does not support either the jurisdictional findings that E.M. was at substantial risk of harm and at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage, or the court’s disposition order removing E.M. from mother. Mother also contends the dependency court violated due process by declining to appoint an expert witness on her behalf. We conclude substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s requests for an expert witness appointment. We affirm.
Comments on In re E.M.