In re I.G. CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 21, 2014 No. F068822Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a psychological evaluation obtained after a jurisdictional hearing does not constitute 'new evidence' under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 when the evidence could have been presented at the original hearing with due diligence. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of the petition because the appellant failed to demonstrate that revisiting the jurisdictional findings would serve the children's best interests.

Issues

Whether a post-judgment psychological evaluation constitutes 'new evidence' under section 388 sufficient to warrant modification of jurisdictional findings.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying a section 388 petition to vacate jurisdictional findings after the dependency case was dismissed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An expert’s opinion based on evidence that was available at the jurisdiction hearing does not constitute new evidence within the meaning of section 388, subdivision (a).”

“Dr. Hernandez’s opinion did not constitute new evidence and is in the category of an expert’s opinion as discussed in H.S. We find H.S. dispositive and apply its holding here.”

Filed 8/21/14 In re I.G. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re I.G., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F068822 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 516594 & 516595) Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION v. JOSE G., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Matthew I. Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION Jose G., father, appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 and further order at the conclusion of a review hearing terminating the court’s jurisdiction. The orders pertain to father’s daughters, I.T.G., now six years old, and I.V.G., now two years old (children). Father argues the juvenile court improperly denied his section 388 petition that sought a reversal of the juvenile court’s findings from the jurisdiction hearing. Although the juvenile court denied father’s section 388 petition, within a week of the denial, the court dismissed the section 300 proceeding and terminated its jurisdiction over the children. We do not find error and affirm the orders of the juvenile court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Initial Proceedings On February 19, 2013, the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) filed a section 300 petition as to father’s two daughters, who were then four years old and eleven months old. The children’s mother, J.L. (mother), has an older daughter, J.Z., who was 11 years old when the petition was filed.2 In February 2013, J.Z. made allegations that father had raped her when she was eight years old. Father was arrested and charged with violating Penal Code sections 269, subdivision (a), and 288, subdivision (b)(1). Mother initially would not agree to keep father away from the children if he was released from jail. Later, mother agreed to not permit father to live in the family home while legal actions proceeded. Based on this information, the petition

In re I.G. CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief