In re S.S. CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 2025 No. B333278Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's denial of jurisdiction, holding that the evidence did not compel a finding of jurisdiction as a matter of law because the evidence was disputed and the nonoffending father was able to protect the minor.

Issues

Whether the evidence compelled a finding of jurisdiction as a matter of law when the party with the burden of proof failed to meet that burden.
Whether the juvenile court erred in its credibility findings regarding the allegations of abuse.
Whether continued dependency jurisdiction was necessary to ensure the minor's safety given the presence of a nonoffending parent.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to support DCFS’s burden does not demonstrate that the court “failed to consider” certain evidence that appellants deem more persuasive.”

“the evidence does not compel a finding as a matter of law that at the time of the jurisdiction hearing S. was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b) or (d).”

Filed 3/28/25 In re S.S. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re S.S., a Person Coming B333278 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. 23CCJP02354, 23CCJP02354A) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent;

M.S.

Respondent;

F.S. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed. Emery El Habiby, under appointment for Appellant F.S. Janelle Brock Price, under appointment for Appellant Minor S.S. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent M.S.. No appearance for Department of Children and Family Services.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In May 2023, 13-year-old S. reported that her mother’s boyfriend, C.B., drank alcohol, abused cocaine, drove while under the influence of alcohol, engaged in domestic violence with mother, inappropriately touched S., and masturbated in front of S. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigated S.’s claims. After a disposition hearing in November 2023 at which mother and S. testified, the juvenile court held that the evidence did not support a finding of jurisdiction. S. and her father, F.S. (father), appeal, asserting that the evidence supported a finding of jurisdiction based on C.B.’s

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and its procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In re S.S. CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

COLLINS, ACTING P. J.

MORI, J.

AI Brief