Fear Not Law Articles: In re Nehemiah R.

In re Nehemiah R.

Filed 1/11/08 In re Nehemiah R. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

In re NEHEMIAH R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

C053724

(Super. Ct. No. JD223525)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND

DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

DANIELLE R. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on December 20, 2007, be modified as follows:

1. On page 4, insert new footnote2 at the end of the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, ending in the words resting on the minors shoulder for about 30 minutes. as follows and renumber the remainder of the footnotes sequentially:

² Mother told the social worker that father had left the blow-dryer resting on the minors shoulder for five minutes.

2. On page 4, insert new footnote 3 at the end of the second to the last sentence of the first paragraph, ending in the words third degree burns to his face and chest. as follows and renumber the remainder of the footnotes sequentially:

³ Medical reports differ with respect to the degree of the minors burns, with one report indicating they were first and second degree burns.

3. On page 5, insert footnote 4 at the end of the last sentence of the first full paragraph, ending in the words and his bones demonstrated diffuse trauma. as follows and renumber the remainder of the footnotes sequentially:

⁴ The fracture of the right proximal humerus was noted in the initial medical summary. A metabolic bone disease expert also believed there was a right proximal humerus fracture, due to trauma. A third doctor also noted, There were changes to the humeral heads that may be reflective of osteopenia or direct trauma, but he could not say with certainty there was a right proximal humerus fracture.

4. On page 11, in the second full paragraph, delete the second sentence in its entirety, ending in the words since the blow-dryer incident. so that the paragraph now reads:

Although mother claimed to believe father that he inflicted the burns accidentally, she also told the social worker she felt it was common sense not to put a blowâ€‘dryer to a babys face and did not know what he was thinking. Furthermore, the explanation for fathers use of the blowâ€‘dryer not only defies common sense, it is inconsistent with his stated purpose of using white noise, as there would be no reason to blow the air directly on the babys face, close enough to burn the baby, for the purpose of using noise.

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.

Appellant (mother) Rachel R.s petition for rehearing is denied.

BY THE COURT:

SIMS , Acting P.J.

HULL, J.

BUTZ , J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.

Description	A modification decision.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.