In re Di. B. CA2/8
Filed 9/4/14 In re Di. B. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re DI. B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B253195 ___________________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. DK00225 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.Y.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Akemi D. Arakaki, Judge. Affirmed.
David A. Hamilton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Appellant.
Office of the County Counsel, John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent. ________________________
INTRODUCTION M.Y. (Mother) appeals from juvenile court orders asserting dependency jurisdiction over her children, Drew and Di. On appeal, Mother contends the children’s father was capable and willing to care for the minors and, thus, the court erred in finding a basis for exercising dependency jurisdiction. We disagree and affirm the juvenile court’s orders. FACTS Mother and D.B. (Father)1 are the parents of Drew (born in May 2010) and Di. (born in November 2008). Mother and Father live separately. As a result of a March 13, 2013 restraining order dispute, the family court ordered the parents to have joint legal custody of the minors, and ordered Mother to have sole physical custody. The family court provided regular visitation for Father every Monday and Wednesday in the early evening, and on the first, third, and fifth weekends of each month from Friday evening to Sunday evening On July 24, 2013, the family came to the attention of the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) when law enforcement found Mother and the minors sleeping in her car underneath the freeway. Due to Mother “having an altered mental status,” she and the minors were then transported by ambulance to Kaiser Permanente’s Woodland Hills hospital (Kaiser). Upon arrival, Mother was “assessed to have overdosed on Ambien” and “could not recall how she arrived at the hospital.” Although legally prescribed the Ambien sleeping medication for insomnia, she took somewhere between six and nine pills, far more than the prescribed amount. She claimed that the prescription was to combat depression; Kaiser’s intake assessment indicated that she “[had] suicidal ideation.” Mother stated that she intentionally ingested the large dose of Ambien, but denied that she did so to kill herself. She admitted that she needed to seek hospitalization and was then placed on an involuntary hold pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)