Ryan P. v. Sup. Ct.
In his petition under California Rules of Court, rule 8.450, Ryan P. (father) challenges the courts order adjudicating a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 supplemental petition[2] only insofar as it sustains a sexual abuse allegation which, father argues, is unsupported by sufficient evidence. The order was issued at the hearing in which the court also scheduled a .26 hearing to consider a permanent plan for five-year-old Ethan P. There are no issues pertaining to mother. Moreover, father does not contest the courts true findings as to the remaining allegations of the supplemental petition, nor does he deny these allegations provide a legitimate basis for continuing dependency jurisdiction, and he does not assign error respecting the dispositional order.
After providing the parties an opportunity to fully brief and orally argue the issue, Court deny the petition. As discussed more fully post, Ethans disclosures of his fathers sexual abuse, consistently repeated to different people at different times, provide a sound evidentiary basis for the order sustaining the allegation.
Comments on Ryan P. v. Sup. Ct.