In re Michael C.
Sid C. appeals from a restraining order issued under Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5[1] in the juvenile dependency case of his minor sons, Michael C. and Brandon C. Sid contends that the court erroneously admitted hearsay statements contained in a social services report and that substantial evidence does not support the court's restraining order. Sid further contends that the restraining order is impermissibly vague because the court did not specify the distance that Sid must maintain between himself and a protected person. We conclude that even if Sid is correct that the alleged hearsay statements should have been excluded, there is still substantial evidence to support the court's restraining order. However, we modify the order to include the omitted distance. As so modified, we affirm the order.
Comments on In re Michael C.