In re F.K. CA4/2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

On February 10, 2017, personnel from the Sonoma County Family, Youth and

Children’s Services (Sonoma County Children Services) filed a petition alleging that S.K.

and F.K. (the children) came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction pursuant to

section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). (S.K., supra, E074453.) On March 6, 2017,

mother agreed to submit to jurisdiction, and the court sustained the allegations in the

petition, as amended, as to F.K. (the minor). (Ibid.) On April 14, 2017, the juvenile

court issued a protective custody warrant for S.K. because mother was uncooperative in

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Intuitions Code unless otherwise stated.

The record on appeal consists solely of a clerk’s transcript containing the MGGPs’ section 388 petition and the order denying it, which appears wholly inadequate for appellate review. “[T]he reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence sufficient to support the judgment; it is the appellant’s affirmative burden to demonstrate otherwise.” (Cequel III Communications I, LLC, v. Local Agency Formation Com. of Nevada County…