 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Bryce B.6/21/2004
On October 3, 2003, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code [FN1] section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), alleging that Bryce B. (born in October 2002) was at a serious risk of harm because his parents, Brett B. and Lillian H. [FN2] had a history of domestic violence, and that their home was in an unsanitary, filthy, unsafe condition and did not contain food suitable for a toddler. The petition alleged the parents' conduct and the condition of the home placed the minor at risk.
FN1. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FN2. Lillian H. is not a party to this appeal.
The detention report indicated the mother appeared to be under the influence of an "unknown substance and was incoherent" at the time of the social worker's visit. It further stated the home was a "disaster," littered with trash, dirty dishes, clothes, and broken and dangerous objects (within reach of a child), that there were holes in the walls, and that the child's playpen was dirty and black with grime. The home had no running water or phone service and Lillian H. told the social worker the electricity would soon be turned off. The report also indicated that Brett B. became confrontational with the social worker and when she asked both parents to take a drug test "he disagreed to everything." Both parents refused to accept responsibility for their actions and appeared to be in denial about the condition of the home and the risk it posed to their child.
At the detention hearing the juvenile court ordered the child detained and set the matter for a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing.
The jurisdiction/disposition report indicated that in October 2002, both parents were arrested for domestic abuse. The report attached a police report from an October 11, 2002, arrest of Lillian H. for domestic violence. The police report indicated on October 11, 2002, Brett B. had been released from custody for a domestic violence incident the previous day involving Lillian H. Brett B. told officers that upon his return home he and Lillian H. had gotten into an argument, and that she had hit him in the mouth. Lillian B. denied striking Brett B., suggesting Brett B. was the aggressor. She also told officers that she and Brett B. occasionally took methamphetamines, but the last time she had been under the influence was the week before. The report also indicated the officers believed Lillian H. was under the influence of methamphetamines at the time of her arrest.
The jurisdiction/disposition report indicated that Brett B. had a 1999 arrest and conviction for a DUI.
*2 The DCFS recommended that the reunification plan include, among other programs, alcohol and substance abuse counseling for both parents and that they each provide the department with six random drug tests.
At the dispositional hearing, the court found Bryce B. was a child at risk and fell within the provisions of section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). The court further indicated that it was inclined to order both parents to submit to eight random drug and alcohol tests (and a full drug rehabilitation program if tests were missed or came back positive). Brett B.'s counsel objected to the testing, asserting there was no evidence that Brett B. had "substance abuse issues" and that the order could not be legally justified. Brett B. further argued the testing would be too burdensome for him because his job often required him to work out of the county. The DCFS asserted the testing was justified based on his 1999 DUI conviction and the conduct of the parents. Brett B. initially requested a contested hearing on the matter, but then did not persist in the request, instead arguing
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|