California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Juvenile Law

JUVENILE LAW
Juvenile Law Case Summaries

■ DM v. Super Ct G041370

 D.M. (father) and L.M. (mother) (collectively, petitioners or parents) seek writ relief from the order of the juvenile court sustaining dependency jurisdiction over their now 15-year-old adopted daughter, C.M.  (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (g); all further undesignated statutory references are to this code.)  Parents do not wish to reunify with C.M.; rather, the gist of their position is that C.M. should be a ward of the court instead of a dependent so they can be spared the alleged stigma of dependency proceedings.  Counsel for the minor opposes the writ petition.  For the reasons we explain below, petitioners’ challenges are without merit, and we therefore affirm the order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over C.M.    I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

                        Consistent with the standard of review, we set out the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order.  (See Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 229; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 364, p. 414 [“‘All of the evidence most favorable to the respondent must be accepted as true, and that unfavorable discarded as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact’”].)

                        Exposed by her birth mother to narcotics in utero, C.M. endured years of abuse and neglect at her birth mother’s hands.  Her birth mother struck her and reportedly prostituted her to feed a drug habit.  C.M. vividly remembered being sexually abused by a maternal uncle when she was four years old.  SSA removed C.M. from her birth mother’s custody at age five.  After two prospective adoptive families disintegrated in divorce, petitioners, who adopted C.M.’s younger half-siblings, accepted C.M. on a “‘trial basis’” because she had nowhere else to go.  Petitioners adopted C.M. in 2003 at age nine. 

■ HELD:

In a juvenile dependency action, juvenile court order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over daughter is affirmed where: 1) there is no error in the report the social services agency and the probation department prepared for the juvenile court under Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 241.1 recommending dependency and rejecting plaintiff's claim that wardship was more appropriate; 2) trial court did not err in declining to require the probation officer to consider filing a new wardship petition against daughter under Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 601; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over daughter.
D.M. v. Super. Ct.-G041370- 4/13/09 CA4/3
D.M. v. Super. Ct.-G041370- 4/13/09 CA4/3-PDF

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory