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 I.I.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

December 3, 2019

IN RE I.I. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.I., Defendant and Appellant I.I. et al., Minors, Respondents.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martha A. Matthews, Judge. Affirmed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP01193)

Page 972

         COUNSEL

         Megan Turkat-Schirn, Beverly Hills, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.I.

         Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

         Neale Gold, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondents I.I. and M.I., Jr., Minors.

         OPINION

         ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

Page 973

         [256 Cal.Rptr.3d 169] Appellant M.I. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order and findings that his children, I.I. (born in 2016) and M.I., Jr. (born in 2017) (the Minors), are persons described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (f),[1] based on the juvenile court’s previously sustained petition finding that the Minors’ mother, R.R. (Mother), and Father caused the death of a child through abuse or neglect. Father argues that, because the court found there was no current risk to the children, the court erred in finding that the Minors were persons described under section 300, subdivision (f). As we explain, the court is required to sustain a petition and assert jurisdiction if the facts described in section 300, subdivision (f) exist. And because it was uncontroverted that, in the earlier case, the juvenile court had found Mother and Father caused the death of their child through abuse or neglect, the court did not err in asserting jurisdiction here. Accordingly, we affirm.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]

         The family consisted of Father, Mother, the Minors, the Minors’ siblings (twins Ad.R. and A.R. (born in 2010) (collectively the twins)) and the Minors’ half siblings, R.V. (born in 2006), S.V. (born in 2007), and S.R. (born in 2013).[3]

          A. Prior Child Welfare History

         In the summer of 2010, Mother gave birth to the twins. In November 2010, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral that Mother had taken the four-month-old twins to the hospital and that medical personnel had determined they were suffering from injuries consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome. DCFS investigated and filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of the twins and their half siblings, R.V. and S.R., under section 300, subdivisions (b), (e), and (f), alleging that the twins were suffering from severe brain injuries consistent with ...


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.