N.F. v. Superior Court CA5
Filed 7/26/22 N.F. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
N.F., F084376 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 21CEJ300246) v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO OPINION COUNTY,
Respondent;
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT * ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ review. Kimberly J. Nystrom-Geist, Judge. N.F., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Adriana Mendoza-Gurrola, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.
N.F. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ from the juvenile court’s May 11, 2022, order issued at a contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing adjudging her then 11-month-old daughter, A.F., a dependent child because of severe physical abuse A.F. sustained while in mother’s care, denying mother reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing 1 for August 23, 2022. Mother does not challenge the court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders. Instead, she contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in not continuing reunification services to the 18-month review hearing and asks for a stay in the proceedings until the matter is resolved on appeal. We dismiss mother’s petition, concluding she failed to assert juvenile court error under California Rules of Court, rule 8.4522 and deny her request for a stay. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY One-month-old A.F. (the baby) presented to the emergency room on July 3, 2021, with bruising on her face, chest, mid-back, and arm. Further evaluation revealed multiple bilateral rib fractures of varying age, a left pulmonary contusion and left hemothorax. The fractures and laboratory test results were indicative of blunt force trauma and child abuse. The baby was admitted to the hospital where she remained for three days. Testing for a bone-related deficiency and/or a genetic disorder was normal. Mother and her boyfriend, E.M., the baby’s father, lived with the maternal grandparents, a maternal aunt and her two children and a maternal uncle. 3 Mother noticed bruising on the baby’s chest on July 1, 2021, and showed them to the maternal grandmother. They thought the bruises were a birth mark or marks made when mother breastfed. On the early morning of July 3, mother noticed bruising by the baby’s eye.
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)