DM

DM v. Superior Court

Good Law
173 Cal. App. 4th 1117·93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 418
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2009G041370California4,384 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency.

Law Offices of J. Michael Hughes and Lawrence A. Aufill for Minor C.M.

ARONSON, J.—

D.M. (father) and L.M. (mother) (collectively, petitioners or parents) seek writ relief from the order of the juvenile court sustaining dependency jurisdiction over their now 15-year-old adopted daughter, C.M. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (g); all further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Parents do not wish to reunify with C.M.; rather, the gist of their position is that C.M. should be a ward of the court instead of a dependent so they can be spared the alleged stigma of dependency proceedings. Counsel for the minor opposes the writ petition. For the reasons we explain below, petitioners' challenges are without merit, and we therefore affirm the order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over C.M.

Consistent with the standard of review, we set out the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's order. (See Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 229 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 113…

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.