legal news

Register | Forgot Password

In re G.C. CA6

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05/23/18 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
In re G.C. CA6

[1] Mother’s separate writ petition challenging the bypass of reunification services for daughter was denied by this court in a nonpublished opinion. (J.C. v. Superior Court (Apr. 26, 2018, H045408) [nonpub. opn.].)

[1] Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[1] Hawkinson testified that he was in an adjacent room behind a two-way mirror observing this interview as it occurred.

[1] The social worker’s jurisdiction report also described videos and pictures of daughter and son being abused, contained in files recovered by the DHS in its investigation. One video depicted daughter one year earlier, lying on her back as an adult male ejaculates into her eyes; others showed penile vaginal and penile anal penetration of the toddler, as well as an adult male anally penetrating son. Although a pediatric forensic examination of son conducted on June 13, 2017, disclosed no physical signs of “penetrating anal trauma,” the clinician noted that this did not “ ‘rule[] out the possibility of prior sexual contact.’ ”

[1] Services were denied to stepfather on the same grounds, as well as on section 361.5, subdivision (e)(1).

[1] Son’s biological father was granted family reunification services.

[1] Section 361.5, subdivision (i), specifies a number of factors for the court to consider: “In determining whether reunification services will benefit the child pursuant to paragraph (6) or (7) of subdivision (b), the court shall consider any information it deems relevant, including the following factors: [¶] (1) The specific act or omission comprising the severe sexual abuse or the severe physical harm inflicted on the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. [¶] (2) The circumstances under which the abuse or harm was inflicted on the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. [¶] (3) The severity of the emotional trauma suffered by the child or the child’s sibling or half sibling. [¶] (4) Any history of abuse of other children by the offending parent or guardian. [¶] (5) The likelihood that the child may be safely returned to the care of the offending parent or guardian within 12 months with no continuing supervision. [¶] (6) Whether or not the child desires to be reunified with the offending parent or guardian.”

Description G.C. (son) was nine years old when he and his two year old half sister S.M. (daughter) were removed from the custody of J.M. (mother) and M.M. (stepfather) following stepfather’s arrest due to his participation in the production and trading of child pornography involving son and daughter. Mother was detained for questioning but not charged in that case. She appeals from the juvenile court’s January 4, 2018 order bypassing reunification services for her as to son.
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 4 views. Averaging 0 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2019 The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2019 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.