In re E.A.
B.D. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders concerning her daughter, E.A., who will be 18 years old in March 2013. Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s dependency finding taking custody of E.A. because mother could not keep E.A. safe from the dangerous, runaway lifestyle she chose to escape the volatile home environment mother provided. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, subds. (b) [failure to protect] & (g) [caretaker absence], 361, subd. (c) [removal from home]; all further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) As we explain, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s ruling, including mother’s admissions she could not control E.A., did not want E.A. to return home because of her behavior and accusations of abuse, that “it is best to let go since E[.A.] does not want to come back,†and her statements on the eve of trial reiterating she did not want E.A. returned to her care. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s dependency and out-of-home placement orders.
Comments on In re E.A.