 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Diane R.5/19/2004
Diane R. (then 12) and Brenda R. (then 7) were taken into protective custody in May 2001, and a petition was filed alleging that their mother (Mirna R.) had failed to protect the children, that one of Mirna's male friends (Sergio G.) had abused the girls with a belt, and that another of Mirna's male friends (Omar T.) had sexually molested Diane. In August 2002, the dependency court placed the girls with their father (Adolfo R., who is not a party to these proceedings), ordered monitored visits for Mirna, and terminated jurisdiction.
In May 2003, the Department of Children and Family Services filed a new petition, alleging that Adolfo had been arrested for drunk driving, that he had left the girls with Mirna, and that Mirna had once again failed to protect them from Omar (who was living with Mirna) by allowing him to have unmonitored contact with the girls. More specifically, the petition alleged that Omar had used his body to push Diane against a wall and, on another occasion, had (in a bedroom) acted as though he intended to kiss Diane. Undisputed evidence (presented during the first case) established that Omar had sexually assaulted Diane.
The petition was sustained in August, and a dispositional hearing was held the same day. Mirna testified that she worked at two different fast food restaurants, had received a certificate of completion for a parenting class, and had enrolled in a program of individual counseling for sexual abuse awareness and domestic violence. Mirna said she had moved out of her old residence after the incident in the bedroom and she was then living in Adolfo's old residence. She said the children knew the adults living there, and actually knew them better than she did. The evidence before the court at that time showed that Adolfo had been detained by INS.
The court found that Diane had previously been sexually abused by Omar, that Mirna failed to take the necessary steps to keep Omar away from the girls, and that Mirna's failure to make any meaningful changes regarding her care of her daughters demonstrated her continued inability to protect them. The court removed the children from Mirna's custody (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 361), [FN1] ordered family reunification services, and authorized monitored visits for Mirna.
FN1. All section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
DISCUSSION
I.
We reject Mirna's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the court's jurisdictional finding that she failed to protect Diane and Brenda from the risk of harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Substantial evidence--indeed, the undisputed evidence--shows that Mirna continued to have a relationship and live with the man who molested her daughter, and that she had absolutely no plan to prevent future harm to her children. No more was required. (In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 733; In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193; Randi R. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 67, 72.) It is therefore irrelevant whether the evidence supported the dependency court's other jurisdictional findings.
II.
*2 For the same reasons, we reject Mirna's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the order removing the girls from her custody. (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 193; In re Mark V. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 754, 759.)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
Page 1 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|