In re KARLA C.,
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>In re KARLA C</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b<br /> >In re KARLA C.,</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/21/10<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</b><sup>*</sup><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL<br /> OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION FIVE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>In re KARLA C., a Person Coming Under the<br /> Juvenile Court Law.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>SAN<br /> MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,<br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> and Respondent,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>P.E.,<br /> <br/> Defendant<br /> and Appellant,<br /> <br/>G.C.<br /> <br/> Defendant<br /> and Respondent.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> A126685<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (San Mateo County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct. No. 79641)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part II…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>The<br /> juvenile court may well have had discretion to request an evaluation of<br /> Father's home, even if not statutorily required. Contrary to Mother's assertion, the court's<br /> statement at the disposition hearing does not indicate that the court believed<br /> it was prohibited from requesting an assessment of Father's home before making<br /> the placement, but only that there was no requirement that it do so. Rather, the court expressed its confidence in<br /> Father's repeated reports regarding his home, his employment, and the<br /> availability of both therapy and parenting classes in Peru. In this<br /> case, while there would have been no abuse of discretion in ordering further<br /> evaluation before placement, we conclude that the court properly<br /> determined it was not required to obtain a home study before it placed Karla with<br /> Father.<br /> <br/><b<br /> >A. <br /> </b><b >Did the Court Abuse its Discretion by Placing Karla<br /> with Father Without Ordering Measures to Enforce its Continuing Jurisdictionâ€