S.L.

S.L. v. Superior Court CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 2025F088931California2,167 words

Opinion

Opinion

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

Initial Removal, Jurisdiction, and Disposition On February 21, 2023, D.L. disclosed that she had been sexually abused by her stepfather, Julio B. An emergency protective order was issued, and a safety plan was put in place in which mother agreed to be protective and not allow Julio B. in the home. However, when law enforcement responded to a disturbance in the home on July 27, 2023, it was discovered that Julio B. had been back in the home since March 2023, and mother indicated that she did not know if she believed that D.L. had been sexually abused by Julio B. Mother minimized any concerns and blamed D.L.’s defiant behavior. As a result of mother’s failure to follow the safety plan, law enforcement placed a section “300 hold” on the children, including J.L. and J.B. At the detention hearing, the

All further references to the rules are to the California Rules of Court. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. Mother also lists another child, son J.L. (now 14 years old) on the petition. However, after being detained he ran away from placement and his whereabouts remained…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.