In re Skyler H.
Filed 5/16/06 In re Skyler H. CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
In re SKYLER H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B187245 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK57465) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. BRYCE H. et al., Objectors and Appellants. |
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jan G. Levine, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Nicole Williams for Appellant Bryce H.
Rich Pfeiffer for Appellant Dawn M.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Lisa Proft, Deputy County Counsel for Respondent.
________________________________
Appellant Dawn M. comes before this court after the summary denial of her petition to present new evidence to the juvenile court prior to that court's hearing on the termination of her parental rights. Because the evidence was specific newly obtained information directly relevant to the central issue in the proceedings, the refusal of the court to consider that evidence was an abuse of discretion. We reverse and remand for a hearing on the evidence presented by appellant.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This court previously considered this dependency proceeding in the context of Bryce H. and Dawn M.'s (parents) petition for extraordinary writ relief (Welf. and Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (l)[1]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1), which we denied.[2] This proceeding involves their infant child Skyler H., who came to the attention of respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) when her parents brought her to the emergency room. On examination there, the medical staff discovered multiple fractures, whose origin the parents could not explain. The parties' briefs repeat the statement of facts from that opinion, which we will not further duplicate here.[3] However, subsequent events in the case are relevant to the determination of this appeal.
When parents filed their writ petition, they had not presented to the juvenile court any evidence in support of their consistently asserted position that Skyler's injuries had a medical basis, and had not been caused by abuse. The sole basis for the court's denial of reunification, and setting of the selection and implementation hearing, was the conclusion that abuse was the cause of the child's condition, based on the otherwise unexplained injuries to the child.
However, the record is now more complete. In conjunction with the section 388 petition, Dawn M. (mother) documented the reason she had not presented medical evidence earlier; the expert she had retained to testify concerning Skyler's injuries had been excluded by the court because that doctor had treated the judge's family. Mother placed on the record the reason she had been unable to locate another expert prior to the dispositional hearing, and her success in locating such an expert while the writ petition was pending. On September 16, 2005, two days after this court denied the writ, mother filed her section 388 petition in the juvenile court, attaching the 25-page declaration of that expert, Dr. Charles Hyman. Dr. Hyman's extensive declaration detailed his qualifications, the research and interviews he had performed, and his conclusion that Skyler's injuries were due to medical causes, rather than physical abuse. The declaration included a four-page list of medical references on which the doctor had relied for his medical opinions. On September 20, mother filed a further declaration, attaching a medical assessment of Skyler that had been prepared by the Regional Center in May 2005, and was consistent with Dr. Hyman's position, but which had never been provided to either parent until September 19, 2005.[4] The court denied mother's petition, without a hearing, on October 6, 2005.
The court's signed order indicated that the petition was denied because it failed â€
