In Re Esmeralda B.

Good Law
11 Cal. App. 4th 1036·14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 23, 1992D015134California2,739 words

Opinion

Opinion

Judith Digennaro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

OPINION

WORK, J.

M. Lourdes B. (Maria) and Neal B. appeal the jurisdictional and dispositional dependency orders entered after the court found their eight-year-old daughter, Esmeralda, and her younger siblings were in danger of future serious physical injury because their parents were unable to adequately supervise or protect them. (Welf. & Inst. Code, [1] § 300, subd. (b).) Because we conclude there is no evidence to support a finding of either past parental supervision inadequacy or any reasonable basis for the juvenile court's conclusion that the parents are incapable of or unwilling to adequately protect their children in the future, we reverse the dependency orders.

Maria and Neal are married and reside with their four children, Esmeralda, born in 1983, Travis, born in 1987, and twins Arlen and Ariana, born in 1990. On April 16, 1991, Maria, who does not speak English, took Esmeralda to see their family pediatrician, Dr. Gene Nathan, who does not speak Spanish, because Esmeralda had found a dried blood spot in her panties when she awoke during the night. Dr. Nathan's pelvic examination of Esmeralda…

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.