In re J v. CA2/5

Filed 7/1/14 In re J.V. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re J. V., A Person Coming Under the B254901 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. CK99703) J. V.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for Extraordinary Writ. Carlos E. Vasquez, Judge. Granted in part. Ronnie Jade Cheung and Tamara Renee Dennis, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Law Office of Marlene Furth and Melissa A. Chaitin, for C. V. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel and Tracey F. Dodds, Deputy County Counsel for Real Party in Interest.

The child, J.V, has filed a mandate petition challenging an order denying the mother, C.V., reunification services pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5). The child argues substantial evidence does not support a finding reunification services should be denied. In addition, the child argues the juvenile court’s findings were insufficient to permit a denial of her reunification services. The mother joins in the child’s arguments. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the order denying reunification services. But, we conclude the juvenile court’s findings were insufficient to support an order denying reunification services. As it appears the juvenile court may have misspoke, we grant the petition solely to allow the juvenile court to correct its findings or order the mother receive reunification services. First, the child argues substantial evidence does not support a finding reunification services should be denied. While in the mother’s custody, the child’s femur was broken. Under these circumstances, reunification services may be denied pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5) which states in part: “(b) Reunification services need not be provided to a parent or guardian described in this subdivision when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶] (5) That the child was brought within the jurisdiction of the court under subdivision (e) of Section 300 because of the conduct of that parent or guardian.” Section 300, subdivision (e) states in part: “Any child who comes within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court: [¶] . . . [¶] (e) The child is under the age of five years and has suffered severe physical abuse by a parent, or by any person known by the parent, if the parent knew or reasonably should have known that the person was physically abusing the child. For the purposes of this subdivision, ‘severe physical abuse’ means any of the following: any single act of abuse which causes physical trauma of sufficient severity that, if left untreated, would cause permanent physical disfigurement, permanent physical disability, or death; any single act of sexual abuse which causes significant bleeding, deep bruising,