In Re Julie M.

Good Law
69 Cal. App. 4th 41·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 354
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 1999G023194California3,537 words

Opinion

Opinion

Harold LaFlamme and Craig E. Arthur, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, Santa Ana, for the Minors.

Lorraine K. appeals from the order on the six-month review hearing. She claims she was denied reasonable reunification services, and she challenges the amended visitation plan requiring consent by her children. We find no merit in the first contention, but reverse on the second because it unlawfully delegates judicial authority to the minors.

Appellant Lorraine K. has three children who are the subject of these dependency proceedings: Julie M., now 14 years old; Katelyn W., now 10 years old; and Michael K., now almost 6 years old. Each child has a different father, none of whom is a party to this appeal.

Lorraine has an ongoing history of drug abuse and assaultive behavior. The children were detained at Orangewood Children's Home following an incident in March 1997, when she locked Julie inside the house and shouted obscenities at her for having called the police. She warned Julie, "[Y]ou fuckin' bitch. If you leave with the fuckin' police, you'll never be allowed back in this fuckin' house again."

Lorraine habitually used profane and derogatory language in…

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.