California Court of Appeal Apr 16, 2013 No. D063055Unpublished
Filed 4/16/13 In re Marie B. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MARIE B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D063055 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ14254) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
L.V.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J.
Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
L.V. appeals an order continuing juvenile court jurisdiction in the dependency
case of her daughter, Marie B. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2008, when Marie's older sister, A.B., was three weeks old, she died
as a result of nonaccidental injuries. A.B.'s autopsy showed she had brain and retinal
hemorrhages, multiple bruises and broken ribs. Her father, Christopher B., and L.V. were
her only caretakers. Christopher admitted playing roughly with A.B. and that he had
caused her death. L.V. denied that she or Christopher had harmed A.B.
L.V. and Christopher were employed by the United States Marine Corps.
Christopher had been deployed to Iraq four times during the past eight years and, before
A.B. was born, he had been on deployment for seven months.
A juvenile court's decision whether to continue jurisdiction is reviewed under the
substantial evidence test. (In re N.S. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 167, 172.) A reviewing
court must uphold a juvenile court's findings and orders if they are supported by
substantial evidence. (In re Amos L. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1036-1037.) "[W]e
must indulge in all reasonable inferences to support the findings of the juvenile court
[citation], and we must also ' . . . view the record in the light most favorable to the orders
of the juvenile court.' " (In re Luwanna S. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 112, 114.) The
appellant bears the burden to show the evidence is insufficient to support the court's
findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's decision to continue jurisdiction
for an additional six months. A.B. died in December 2008 while in the care of her
parents. The juvenile court found allegations true under section 300, subdivision (f), and
5
Christopher admitted causing her death. His psychological evaluation and history
showed he had problems with anger, but did not see a reason for treatment. After
participating in services, he admitted that at the time of A.B.'s birth he needed to have
better parenting skills, including having more patience. L.V. continued to depend on
Christopher and had a difficult time accepting his role in A.B.'s death. Both parents had
limited parenting experience in that Marie had been in the care of the maternal
grandparents for much of her life. Also, Marie was a very young child and thus
especially vulnerable. L.V. has not shown a lack of substantial evidence to support the
court's finding that it was in Marie's best interests to continue dependency jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MCINTYRE, J.
IRION, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to continue dependency jurisdiction for an additional six months due to the severity of the original protective issues and the parents' ongoing challenges.
Issues
Did the juvenile court err by continuing dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, subdivision (c)?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's decision to continue jurisdiction for an additional six months.”
“L.V. has not shown a lack of substantial evidence to support the court's finding that it was in Marie's best interests to continue dependency jurisdiction.”