California Court of Appeal Jun 6, 2016 No. D069811Unpublished
Filed 6/6/16 In re Julian E. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re JULIAN E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D069811 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J519239B) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTIAN E.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon L.
Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed.
Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Dana C. Shoffner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Christian E. appeals an order removing his son, Julian E., from his custody under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1).1 We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Julian E. is the seven-year-old son of Christian and Shannon S. On August 24,
2015, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) detained
Julian in protective custody and filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b). The
including his recent methamphetamine use. The juvenile court could reasonably
conclude that Christian needed to make greater progress in substance abuse treatment
before Julian could be safely returned to his care. That, alone, is sufficient to sustain a
detriment finding. The record further shows that on several occasions, the social worker
8
told Christian his home was not suitable for Julian. Christian did not take any steps to
locate more suitable housing for himself and Julian, and did not ask the social worker for
assistance.
In considering Christian's past conduct and current circumstances, as well as
Julian's age and ability to protect himself (In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814,
824), the juvenile court reasonably determined Julian was at risk of harm in Christian's
care, and there were no reasonable means to protect Julian's physical health without
removing him from the custody of his parents. (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) While the record
shows that Christian and Julian are very well bonded, and that Christian voluntarily
participated in some of the services the Agency offered to him prior to the dispositional
hearing, the juvenile court properly focused on averting any harm to Julian in removing
him from substandard housing and care. (In re T.V., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 135-
136.) We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's
detriment finding and removal order.
9
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
MCCONNELL, P. J.
HALLER, J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that returning the child to the father's custody would create a substantial danger to the child's health and safety, justifying removal under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1).
Issues
Whether substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's finding of substantial danger to the child's health and safety if returned to the father's custody.
Whether the juvenile court erred in finding no reasonable means to protect the child without removal from the father's custody.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The juvenile court found that the conditions of Christian's residence, his history of methamphetamine use, and his relationship with Shannon presented a substantial danger to Julian's physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being.”
“We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's detriment finding and removal order.”