Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re K.R., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. G.F. et al

February 10, 2011

IN RE K.R., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW. TRINITY COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
G.F. ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.



Super. Ct. No. 09JU072

In re K.R. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Trinity

----

Mother and father appeal a juvenile court order terminating parental rights to their minor child. Father contends there was insufficient evidence to deny him reunification services at the dispositional hearing. Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition without a hearing.*fn1 We conclude that father's claim is barred because he failed to file a writ within seven days after the dispositional hearing, at which hearing the section 366.26 hearing was set. We further conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's section 388 petition without a hearing. We affirm the orders.

BACKGROUND

In December 2009 mother and father were living in a motor home on a large piece of property in Trinity County with their 15-month-old daughter. Also living on the property in a converted bus and a motor home, respectively, were Richard W. and Mike M.

On December 14, 2009, mother celebrated her birthday by drinking six beers. Mother and father fought; father walked off the property. Mother then walked to the converted bus in which Richard lived. Inebriated, angry, and holding her daughter, mother engaged in a physical altercation with Richard, Mike, and Mike's adult daughter Michelle D. Before and during the altercation, the child was dropped repeatedly.

The child was detained four days later. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) then filed a petition alleging the child came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b). An amended petition was filed a short time later, adding an allegation under section 300, subdivision (j). The amended original petition specifically alleged that while mother was under the influence of alcohol, she engaged in a physical altercation with other adults while at the same time holding the minor child. The child was thus handled roughly and dropped.

Additionally, it was alleged that father failed to protect the child from mother, who has a history of substance abuse and mental illness, and the conduct of both parents was due, in part, to their substance abuse. As to mother, it was specifically alleged that she failed to overcome the problems that resulted in the removal of the child's half brother and the termination of her parental rights over him in 2007.

In March 2010 a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held. Mother testified and denied dropping the child. Mother claimed Richard pulled the child from her arms, Richard and Mike pinned mother to the ground and beat her, and Richard "stuck a couple of Klonopin" in her mouth.

Michelle D. also testified. Michelle said she arrived at the converted bus on December 14, 2009, to find mother so drunk she kept falling down, dropping the child each time she fell. Michelle testified that mother was "ranting and raving and screaming that she had to go follow [father] and find him." Michelle also described mother attacking her, grabbing handfuls of Michelle's hair, ripping it from her scalp, and punching Michelle in the face.

Michelle also observed that the child, who once was crying, had become quiet. Michelle approached the child, who had been left on the floor where she had been "thrown," and saw that the child had a "blank stare" on her face and was having trouble holding her head up. Michelle called 911. Michelle's account of the assault was corroborated by the social worker with whom she met three days later.

The social worker testified that when she met with Michelle, Michelle had "several clumps of hair missing, and it looked like it had kind of scabbed over and looked painful. She also had some bruising on her face. She looked like she had a black eye, remnants of one, and her lip was split."

DHHS also reported that the child's half brother, J.M. was removed from mother's custody in 2007 on the grounds that mother neglected and abused J.M. Mother was given reunification services for J.M., including substance abuse treatment, but failed to participate. Accordingly, mother's parental rights were terminated and J.M. was successfully adopted into another family.

Based on this evidence, the trial court sustained the allegations in the amended original petition.

In regard to disposition, DHHS reported that mother and father both had numerous arrests and convictions, many of which were related to their drug and alcohol abuse. Moreover, father had repeatedly violated parole, escaped from jail with force, and in August 2000 was convicted of attempting to dissuade a witness with the use of threat or force in violation of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (c)(1).

DHHS also reported that two other children were taken from mother's custody in 1999, when she was living in Maine, after a drug raid was conducted on the home in which mother was living with her boyfriend, who was subsequently arrested for trafficking heroin. Maine State Child Protective Services asked mother to participate in inpatient substance abuse treatment for her heroin addiction, but she tested positive for cocaine and marijuana while ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.