In Re VM

California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 1987 No. B019273Published

Before: Woods (n.F.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in maintaining dependency jurisdiction over the minors, as the evidence supported a finding that family instability persisted and the mother had not pursued sufficient judicial protections to ensure the children's safety.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by ordering the minors to remain wards of the court at the judicial review hearing?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The imposition of juvenile dependency jurisdiction must depend on the welfare of the child, not the fault or lack of fault of the parents.”

“The evidence presented at the judicial review hearing established by a preponderance that there was still enough instability in the family to justify dependency jurisdiction and continued participation in counseling.”

190 Cal.App.3d 753 (1987) 235 Cal. Rptr. 506 In re V.M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

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

BEVERLY M., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. B019273. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

February 27, 1987. [754] COUNSEL

Abby Edleson Pollitt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Sterling R. Honea and Joe Ben Hudgens, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

WOODS (N.F.), J.[*]

FACTS

On August 7, 1985, the juvenile court petition of the department of public social services was heard before juvenile court Referee A.Q. Hyman, Judge Pro Tem. of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The minor children, V.M. and K.M. (ages 16 and 6, respectively) were declared dependent children of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on the ground that, on "numerous occasions" over the preceding nine years, V. had been sexually molested by Timothy M., who is the stepfather of V. and the [755] natural father of K. The minors were returned to the home of their mother (appellant herein), Beverly M., under the supervision of the department of public social services.

On December 23, 1985, before Juvenile Court Referee A.Q. Hyman, a six-month status-review hearing required by rule 1378 of the California Rules of Court and Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.2 was held.

In Re VM

AI Brief

OPINION

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ISSUES

III

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief