In Re Melissa H.

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 1974 No. 33342Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juvenile court may properly find a home unfit under Welfare and Institutions Code section 600(d) based on a stepfather's past sexual molestation and his stated intent to return to the home, even if the mother is not at fault.

Issues

Whether a juvenile court's finding of an unfit home under section 600(d) requires evidence of present unfitness.
Whether the potential return of a molesting stepfather justifies a finding of present home unfitness.
Whether the state's interest in a child's welfare justifies limited intrusion on parental custody rights.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The use of the present tense verb indicates an intent that the unfitness exist at the time of the hearing; however, past events can aid in a determination of present unfitness.”

“The potential return and resumption of residence in the home by the unfit parent justified the determination that the home was unfit”

38 Cal.App.3d 173 (1974) 113 Cal. Rptr. 139 In re MELISSA H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

HELEN M. HOTELLING, as Chief Probation officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

SHARON E., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 33342. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

March 28, 1974. [174] COUNSEL

Sam T. Chapman for Defendant and Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Assistant Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, Derald E. Granberg and Thomas P. Dove, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT

The mother of a minor appeals from an order of the lower court under subdivision (d) of section 600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code declaring the minor a dependent, placing her under the control and custody of the Director of the Napa County Welfare Department, and placing her in the home of the mother. A special finding was entered to the effect that the home involved was "unfit" solely because of the stepfather's acts of sexual molestation while in the home.

[175] (1) Under subdivision (d) of section 600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court extends to any person whose home "is" unfit. The use of the present tense verb indicates an intent that the unfitness exist at the time of the hearing; however, past events can aid in a determination of present unfitness. (In re Morrow (1970) 9 Cal. App.3d 39, 56 [88 Cal. Rptr. 142]; In re Zimmerman (1962) 206 Cal. App.2d 835, 844 [24 Cal. Rptr. 329]; see also Dupes v. Superior Court (1917) 176 Cal. 440, 442 [168 P. 888]; In re Corrigan (1955) 134 Cal. App.2d 751, 756-757 [286 P.2d 32]; In re Van Vlack (1947) 81 Cal. App.2d 838, 842 [185 P.2d 346].)

In Re Melissa H.

AI Brief

OPINION

THE COURT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief