 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re A. C.6/28/2005
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
Perla A. (Mother) and Jorge C. (Father), parents of A. C. and residents of Tijuana, Mexico, appeal the juvenile court's postdispositional order granting de facto parent status to Jon and Christine D. (the D's.), the foster parents of A., a juvenile court dependent. Mother contends California does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam. Code, ยง 3400 et seq.) (the Act). She also contends the court erred by denying her request for a continuance, the dependency petition does not state a cause of action, and the jurisdictional findings and orders are unsupported by substantial evidence. Father contends he was not properly served under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638). Both parents contend the court abused its discretion by granting the D's.' de facto parent application and each parent joins in the other's arguments. We conclude California does not have subject matter jurisdiction of this dependency proceeding and reverse with directions to the juvenile court to dismiss the dependency petition.
I. BACKGROUND
In July 2002 Mother, two-year-old A., and A. 's younger sibling were in a car accident in Tijuana. A. sustained spinal cord injuries and severe respiratory complications. The record does not disclose whether her sibling was injured. Mother was seriously injured in the accident. She was confined to a wheelchair and needed a series of reconstructive surgeries to increase her mobility. She was treated in Mexico. Father was the family's sole means of support and not in a position to provide the 24-hour care she needed.
A. was hospitalized in Tijuana and on August 8, 2002, transferred to the Shriners' Hospital in Sacramento, California. On October 25 she returned home to Tijuana but developed complications. She was re- hospitalized in Tijuana and on March 18, 2003, at her family's request, returned to the Shriners' Hospital. On July 9 she returned to Mexico, but her condition deteriorated. On July 10 she was admitted to the intensive care unit at the Shriners' Hospital, where she remained until July 29. After her stay in the intensive care unit, she remained in the hospital.
On August 4, 2003, the Sacramento County child welfare agency (the Sacramento Agency) filed a dependency petition for A. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g). On August 7 this petition was dismissed as premature because no date had been set for A. 's discharge from the hospital. On September 5, the day she was due to be discharged, the Sacramento Agency took her into protective custody and detained her with the D's., licensed foster parents who lived in Ramona, San Diego County and had experience caring for medically fragile children. On September 9 the Sacramento Agency filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g) petition, alleging A. 's injuries were life-threatening without monitoring by pediatric specialists and machinery, unavailable in Tijuana and, possibly, Mexico. On December 12 the petition was dismissed because of insufficient evidence that Mother and Father were neglectful or abusive. The same day, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) received a referral informing it of the dismissal.
On December 23, 2003, a Spanish speaking Agency social worker interviewed Mother and Father, who agreed to Agency's taking jurisdiction over A. On December 26 Agency detained A. in the D's.' foster home. On December 31, when A. was three and one-half years old, Agency filed a depe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|