People v. Montgomery-Gutzman CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 2022C090701California12,587 words

Opinion

Opinion

Facts Underlying The Crimes “[Thomas] hated children and never wanted to have them. Despite that fact, [Thomas] had several children and a history of involvement with child protective services. Her first interaction with child protective services occurred in 2004 when [her] oldest child was three weeks old and [she] told a friend not to comfort the infant when he cried because [she] did not want him to be spoiled. Soon thereafter, [Thomas] called the same friend and told her the baby was not having a good day, and he was crying uncontrollably. [Thomas] said she had ‘already tried killing the kid; I strangled him until he stopped breathing.’ [Thomas’s] friend reported the incident to child protective services. The report was determined to be unfounded and [Thomas] was given information about a crisis nursery and family resource center. [Thomas’s] oldest child went to live with [her] parents at six months old and continued to do so, except for a year when he was five years old. While the living arrangement was prompted by child protective services, there was no official order requiring [Thomas’s] oldest child to live with [her] parents.

While the trial court admitted this…

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.