In Re Amber D.

O'Neil v. Michelle D.

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1245·235 Cal. App. 3d 718·286 Cal. Rptr. 2d 751·286 Cal. Rptr. 751·91 Daily Journal DAR 13198
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 25, 1991H007928California2,053 words

Opinion

Opinion

Agliano, J.

—Michelle D. (mother) appeals from an order permanently freeing her nine-year-old daughter, Amber, from her custody and control pursuant to Civil Code section 232, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(7). On appeal mother contends she was denied her due process right to confront witnesses when the trial court excluded her from her daughter’s testimony pursuant to section 232, subdivision (b). Mother further contends the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of unspecified facts in the minor’s juvenile court dependency file. We find no error and affirm the order.

Background

Amber was made a dependent of the juvenile court in July 1986 when she was five years old, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (d). At that time mother was a heroin addict who engaged in prostitution to support her habit. According to the dependency petition, mother was unable to make adequate child care arrangements, leaving the minor in the care of the maternal grandmother for six months of the past year. On one occasion mother left the minor with a roommate who inflicted a bruise under Amber’s right eye.

Amber was placed in the home of Rosalyn Teel, the mother…

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.