In re Luis H.

California Court of Appeal Aug 30, 2017 No. B276237Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's dismissal of a dependency petition as to two minors, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the evidence compelled a finding of jurisdiction as a matter of law.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court's dismissal of a dependency petition as to two minors was supported by sufficient evidence.
Whether the appellants met their burden on appeal to show that the evidence compelled a finding of jurisdiction as a matter of law.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Luis H. and Alan H. have failed to meet their burden on appeal.”

Filed 8/30/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

In re LUIS H. et al., Minors. B276237

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super Ct. No. DK17782) AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MORENA H., Defendant and Respondent; LUIS H. et al., Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Julie Fox Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed. Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellants. Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent.

_______________________

Minors Luis H. and Alan H. appeal from the dismissal of the dependency petition filed on their behalf pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Morena H. has four children: Maria E. (born 2002), Leslie O. (born 2008), Luis H. (born 2012), and Alan H. (born 2016). In 2016 the family came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services when Leslie O. disclosed to her teacher that her mother’s boyfriend and Luis H.’s father, Manuel B., had sexually abused her. After an investigation also revealed possible physical abuse of Maria E. by Morena H., DCFS filed a petition alleging that the four children came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm); (b) (failure to protect); (d) (sexual abuse); and (j) (abuse of sibling). The juvenile court conducted a contested jurisdictional hearing. At the close of the hearing, the court dismissed the allegations of serious physical harm as to all children; concluded that Morena H. had failed to protect Leslie O. from being sexually abused by Manuel H.; and sustained the failure to protect and sexual abuse allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d) as to Leslie O. only. The court did not sustain the subdivision (b), (d), or (j) allegations as to the other three children, saying, “I will not sustain the counts as to the siblings. And the reason is this: I don’t have any evidence that there has been any sexual abuse of any of the siblings, including

In re Luis H.

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

ZELON, J.

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

AI Brief