McFarlin

McFarlin v. Thomas M.

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 853·232 Cal. App. 3d 849·283 Cal. Rptr. 788·91 Daily Journal DAR 9061·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5825
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 23, 1991No. H006375California7,593 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Elia, J.

—Thomas and Dorothea M., parents of Amy and Michael M., appeal orders adjudicating their children dependents of the juvenile court. They argue on appeal that insufficient efforts were made to prevent the need to remove the children from their home; that insufficient evidence supports juvenile court jurisdiction and out-of-home placement; that Amy was not competent to testify; and that they were denied their due process rights by the juvenile court’s refusal to allow them to interview or to call Michael as a witness in the proceeding. Although we find no other errors, we agree that *855 appellants’ right to due process was violated by the juvenile court’s failure to allow them to call Michael as a witness. Therefore, while we affirm the adjudication of dependency as to Amy, we will reverse it as to Michael.

Factual and Procedural Background

Amy was bom on November 21, 1977; Michael on April 8, 1981. On April 21, 1989, Amy was placed in protective custody; the previous day she had told another child at school that her father had molested her. On April 26, a petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (d). 1 The petition alleged that Amy…

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.