Filed 8/7/20 Certified for Publication 8/28/20 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT In re A.C., a Person Coming B302248 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ (Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP05493) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.L., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas E. Grodin, Judge. Affirmed. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ The juvenile court found placing 12-year-old Daughter out of state with her father would be detrimental to the child’s emotional well-being. We affirm. I This dependency case started shortly after Daughter’s half brother was born in August 2019. Both the half brother and Mother tested positive for amphetamine at the hospital. Within two weeks, the Department of Children and Family Services filed a juvenile dependency petition under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. All statutory references are to this code. The Department alleged Mother’s substance abuse endangered Daughter and her half brother and rendered Mother incapable of caring for them. Accordingly, the Department sought to remove the children from Mother and place them with their maternal grandmother. At the time, Daughter lived with Mother, an uncle, and other family members. When the Department filed its petition, Daughter did not know her father. Daughter had not lived with him since she was a toddler. Mother said she and Father separated due to domestic violence. Father said he left because he and Mother were no longer getting along. He denied physically harming Mother. After leaving Mother and Daughter, Father had little contact with them and did not pay child support. Mother said Father stopped all contact years ago after she asked him for financial help buying a Christmas present for Daughter. Mother and Daughter appeared before the juvenile court in August 2019. The court found a prima facie case for detaining Daughter and her half brother from Mother under section 300. The court ordered a multidisciplinary assessment of Daughter and ordered the Department to locate Father. 2 After locating Father, the Department interviewed him, Mother, Daughter, and others. Daughter also saw a therapist. She asked to speak with her father, and a social worker facilitated the call. The Department’s 2019 reports described the situation in the following terms. Father lives in Washington State with his wife and seven- year-old son. He is self-employed and financially stable. Father wants a relationship with Daughter. According to Father’s wife, Mother did not allow Father to see Daughter. Daughter does not want to live with Father. She wants to visit him, but only on holidays or in the summer. Daughter sees Father as a stranger who could have reached out to her over the years but did not. She is uncomfortable ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals