 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
David B. v. Superior Court9/8/2004
4th 545, 554.) Since a detriment finding was essential to both the court's decision not to place David in father's custody (both initially and thereafter) and its decision to order a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, it is appropriate for us to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the detriment finding upon father's challenge to the referral order since this finding underlies the court's decision to require father to participate in reunification services rather than to obtain custody of David without services.
FN1. Father filed but then abandoned an appeal.
"A court's ruling under section 361.2, subdivision (a) that a child should not be placed with a noncustodial, nonoffending parent requires a finding of detriment by clear and convincing evidence. We review the record in the light most favorable to the court's order to determine whether there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find clear and convincing evidence that that [sic] the [child] would suffer such detriment. Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt." (In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426, citations omitted.) "A detriment evaluation requires that the court weigh all relevant factors to determine if the child will suffer net harm." (Luke M. at p. 1425.)
Here, the Department presented substantial evidence that David would be harmed if placed with father. David was in a stable placement with relative caretakers with whom he had bonded. Father had made little effort to establish a relationship with David. He thought visitation was unimportant, and his actions demonstrated this belief. Father had a lengthy history of criminality and substance abuse and a very recent positive drug test, but he refused to own up to his full history or his recent use. He demonstrated an inability to deal with frustration or to control his impulses. Expert testimony established that father was at high risk for relapse.
*4 The juvenile court could have reasonably concluded that it would be harmful to David to wrest him away from the caretakers with whom he had bonded and place him with a person who had taken few steps to establish a relationship with him and whose substance abuse and lack of patience raised serious questions about his ability to parent an infant. The evidence supports the juvenile court's detriment finding.
III. Disposition
The petition is denied.
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|