In re Megan P.
Two-month-old I.G. died from nonaccidental injuries inflicted while in the care of her mother, Claudia G., and her father, Ivan G. The juvenile court took dependency jurisdiction over the babys sibling, Diego G., and her half-sibling, Megan P.; removed them both from parental custody; and denied reunification services to Claudia. In Diegos case, the juvenile court also denied reunification services to Ivan G. and referred the case directly to a permanent plan selection hearing under Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] Claudia filed a petition challenging that referral order under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, and this court issued an opinion denying the petition in July 2009. (Claudia G. v. Superior Court (July 28, 2009, G041825) [nonpub. opn.]). The juvenile court did not refer Megans case to a permanent plan selection hearing because it granted reunification services to her father, Eddie P. Consequently, Claudia appeals from the courts jurisdictional and dispositional orders affecting Megan. She claims there is insufficient evidence to support the findings that (1) she caused I.G.s injuries, (2) Megan is at a substantial risk of harm if she remains in Claudias custody, and (3) it would not benefit Megan to pursue reunification. We find the record supports the juvenile courts judgment and affirm.
Comments on In re Megan P.