Filed 1/26/21 In re H.T. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D077619 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4381D) v. Ha.T. et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Affirmed. Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.T. Megan Turkat-Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ha.T. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Tahra Broderson, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 Ha.T. (Mother) and A.T. (Father) appeal orders of the juvenile court finding it had jurisdiction over their infant son, H.T., pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a),1 and then adopting a family maintenance plan that required Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation. Mother ran a daycare business providing care for infants and young children. Y.M., a seven-month-old boy, suffered nonaccidental life- threatening injuries while in Mother’s care. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a section 300, subdivision (a) petition alleging that H.T., then 16-months-old, was at substantial risk of serious physical harm because Mother had inflicted those severe injuries on Y.M. according to the opinion of a child abuse medical expert. At the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court found the petition’s allegations to be true, declared H.T. to be a dependent of the court, and placed him with his parents. Given Mother’s continued denial that she caused Y.M.’s injuries despite compelling evidence to the contrary, the court then issued a dispositional order requiring Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation. Mother and Father each filed a notice of appeal, challenging the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional order. On appeal, they contend: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s jurisdictional order; and (2) the court abused its discretion by issuing a dispositional order requiring Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation. As we explain post, we conclude the court did not err. 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2019, Mother and Father had been married for 14 years and were parents to H.T., then 16 months old, and three older children.2 After receiving a bachelor’s degree in early childhood development and previously working as a preschool teacher at a child development center for nine years, Mother opened, and had been operating for four years, a daycare for children in their home. Father assisted Mother with the daycare, distributing lunches to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals