In Re Tanya P.

California Court of Appeal May 20, 1981 No. 58617Published

Before: Ashby

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the stepfather during the minor's testimony, that evidentiary objections were either waived or harmless, and that sufficient evidence supported the dependency finding.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in excluding the stepfather during the minor's testimony.
Whether the admission of hearsay testimony by a police officer constituted reversible error.
Whether the admission of non-testifying experts' reports was erroneous.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the dependency judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellants did not object to this procedure in the trial court, and therefore may not raise this argument for the first time on appeal.”

“It is solely the function of the trial court to weigh these inconsistencies and determine the credibility of Tanya as a witness.”

120 Cal.App.3d 66 (1981) 174 Cal. Rptr. 533 In re TANYA P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

FRANCISCA P. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Docket No. 58617. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.

May 20, 1981. [68] COUNSEL

Stephen R. Grohs for Defendants and Appellants.

John H. Larson, County Counsel, and David F. Skjeie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

ASHBY, J.

The juvenile court found the minor, eight-year-old Tanya P., to be a dependent child of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (d). The court found true the allegation that on or about June 17, 1979, and on numerous prior occasions, Tanya's stepfather, appellant Raymond P., sexually molested her by oral copulation. Tanya was removed from the custody of her stepfather and mother, appellant Francisca P., for suitable placement.

We deem it unnecessary to state the facts in detail. In summary, Tanya testified that on many occasions over the past year her stepfather had invited her into his room and placed his penis in her mouth.

Appellants contend (1) that the trial court erred in hearing Tanya's testimony outside the presence of the stepfather; (2) that the court erroneously [69] admitted hearsay testimony by a police officer; (3) that the court erroneously admitted reports from a psychiatrist and psychologist appointed by the court; and (4) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. None of these contentions is meritorious.

In Re Tanya P.

AI Brief

OPINION

ASHBY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

TANYA'S TESTIMONY

HEARSAY

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

NOTES

AI Brief