Fourth District Division 2 appeal court upholds juvenile order citing risk to child.

The court specifically cited the below as representing risk to the child and denied the writ proceeding.  It should be noted that if a parent brings up health issues in family law cases, due to the other parent’s medical and health neglect, that parent is labeled as “fixated” although those factors certainly represent risk to a child and those cases are dragged out for THREE years as the appeal court in every instance applies a discriminatory standard to certain cases.  The question has to be asked. Would the same family law court label Dr. Suiter and the social worker in this case as being fixated on providing a healthy environment for the child?   This is the double standard that litigants face on a daily basis.  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/E060818.PDF

“Throughout the public health nurse’s sessions with mother, she discussed the
dangers of secondhand smoke, as well as her safety concerns with regard to having the
dogs living in the mobile home. Mother had a female pit bull that had puppies, and the
nurse was concerned that the pit bull would get protective of the puppies and bite the
child. The nurse addressed her concerns with mother again on December 23, 2013, but at
the next visit on January 9, 2014, the pit bull and her puppies were still in the home.
Mother apparently saw no need to take corrective action.
Mother points out that the public nurse visited her home over two months prior to
the 12-month hearing. Thus, she argues that the court should have continued the hearing
for a current home evaluation. However, at the hearing, mother did not allege that her
home had become more suitable for the child, nor did she request a continuance. In her
writ, mother still does not allege that her home is suitable. In other words, she did not
show good cause to grant a continuance then, nor has she alleged good cause now.
(§ 352.) Moreover, we note that, although the nurse’s last visit was two months prior to the hearing, the maternal grandmother testified at the hearing that she was currently
participating in visits with mother and the child at mother’s home. The grandmother said
that she and mother smoked around the child. She also testified that mother was still
keeping puppies in her mobile home.
Additionally, we note that the evidence showed mother was still indifferent about
the child’s diet. Despite the public health nurse addressing proper nutrition with mother
and advising against giving the child junk food, mother continued to do so. The maternal
grandmother testified that, at a recent visit, mother fed the child, who was only three
years old, chicken strips, french fries, and ice tea. At another visit, mother fed her chips,
hotdogs, a king-size chocolate bar, pudding, and yogurt, even though the child was
lactose intolerant.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s