Michael S., In re
| Decision Date | 31 December 1981 |
| Citation | 127 Cal.App.3d 348,179 Cal.Rptr. 546 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re MICHAEL S., a minor, et al. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. DON H. S., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 60258, Civ. 60259. |
John H. Larson, County Counsel, Larry D. Cory, James M. Owens and David F. Skjeie, Deputies County Counsel, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
*
Case Nos. J910124-910128 (Tamara, Le Ann, Jon, Robert and Melissa)
On April 18, 1978, petitions were filed with regard to minors Tamara, Le Ann, Jon, Robert and Melissa Stephenson pursuant to section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, alleging various acts of sexual abuse and further alleging that their home was unfit by virtue of these alleged acts.
On December 15, 1978, the children were declared dependent children of the juvenile court and a finding was made that it would be detrimental for them to remain in their home. The minors were ordered suitably placed, except that minor Melissa might remain in the home of the mother on a 90 day trial basis. The matter was continued for progress report as to minor Melissa and On March 20, 1980, the matter came up for annual review. The suitable placement order was ordered to remain in effect as to minors Tamara, Le Ann, Jon and Robert. Minor Melissa was to remain in the home of the mother. The father was ordered to have no contact, visits or phone calls with any minors until further order of the court. The order in the interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage for reasonable visitation was ordered revoked. The father was ordered to have no contact even if released. The Department of Public Social Services was ordered to look into a plan designed to reunite the mother and the minors. The mother was ordered to participate in counseling as directed by the Department of Public Social Services. Said department was ordered to look into the mother's ability to care for minors Michael and Melissa, and it was ordered that the dependency court and Department of Public Social Services were to be notified of the imminent release of the father by any other court. ** The matter was continued to February 20, 1981, for annual review.
for annual review. The court further ordered no physical contact by the father with the minors except through the Department of Public Social Services.
Notice of appeal from the annual review order was timely filed on May 13, 1980, by the minors' father.
Case No. J917389 (Michael)
On August 20, 1979, a petition was filed with regard to minor Michael pursuant to section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, alleging that on or about April 14, 1978, his siblings were taken into protective custody due to various acts of sexual abuse and that his home was unfit by virtue of these acts.
On December 6, 1979, the adjudication of the petition as to Michael commenced. The petition was amended by striking the language in Count VII that read "and failed to take steps to protect minor's siblings" and striking the entirety of Counts V and VI. Petitioner submitted the matter on a request for judicial notice of the petitions in the matter of the other minors, the parents contesting only the legal not factual aspects of the Petitioner, and the matter was taken under submission. Counsel were ordered to prepare Points and Authorities on the issue of jurisdiction.
On March 20, 1980, the court took jurisdiction of Michael under the sibling filing. Subsequently, Michael was adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court and ordered suitably placed, allowing him to remain in his mother's home. The father was ordered to have no visits or contact with the minor, even in the event of his release, until further order of the court. The matter was continued to February 20, 1981 for annual review.
On April 16, 1980, appellant filed an application for rehearing and order pursuant to section 558 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as to the adjudication proceedings of March 20, 1980, which was denied.
Notice of Appeal was timely filed on May 14, 1980. On June 4, 1980, Notice of Appeal from the denial of rehearing as to the adjudication was filed.
The report of Desmond Fung, M.D. (dated Mar. 17, 1980), was received into evidence. Dr. Fung indicated that the mother, Mrs. Phung Stephenson, complained that she had great difficulty taking care of her two children at home and that it was conceivable that her difficulty as a mother would be greatly magnified if she had to care for four children. Therefore, he recommended no added responsibilities then or in the near future, since the "stresses resulting from any additional responsibility may very well strain her limited capability and the effect would be detrimental to her mental stability."
The report of Thomas R. Brigante, Ph.D. (dated Jan. 14, 1980) was received into evidence.
The report indicated that Dr. Brigante had tested and evaluated appellant's sons, Jon and Robert Stephenson.
It indicated that Jon demonstrated "striking intellectual ability," with an overall I.Q. of 141 on the Wechsler Scale, which placed him in the "very superior range." It indicated that he had "underlying anxiety" and possibly an "underlying depression" but that he did show some "healthy curiosity and the capacity to experience pleasure in play."
It indicated that on intelligence testing, Robert had "a very superior score on performance measures" but was only in the normal range on the verbal portion. Despite the impairment in adequately assessing his verbal ability, the overall score was 116, which is "high average."
It recommended a low stress level for both boys and a concern that they might "retreat into illness if neglected, misunderstood, or ignored."
The Children's Services Worker's Report, filed December 6, 1979, was also received in evidence.
It indicates further that appellant continues in the MDSO program at Patton State Hospital, wants Melissa to remain with her mother, would like the other minors returned to her care, and has expressed the goal of reunification.
It indicates also that Mrs. S. would like the older children returned and to have Melissa remain with her. She said she did not intend to let appellant back in the home when he is released.
Appellant relies on Tamara to care for the younger children.
It indicates that Mrs. S. had denied any knowledge of the sexual abuse, but that the therapist found this questionable and was doubtful that Mrs. S. "will not succumb to her husband's domination."
Tamara has stated that she did not want to go back home if things could not be different. The girls feel they are not getting love from their mother and the staff has observed that the mother is "increasingly short-tempered with the girls."
Mrs. S. "provides good physical care" to minor Melissa and her infant brother and that the children are clean and appear well fed.
The recommendation was that the minors remain dependent children of the court, that the previous suitable placement order remain in effect, that the four eldest children remain as placed, and that the minor Melissa be placed in a long term foster home under supervision of the Department of Public Social Services; that the previous order of no visitation by the father but allowing a bi-weekly 30 minute monitored telephone call to the minors remain in effect.
An unsigned letter purporting to have been dictated by appellant's son Jon, was also admitted into evidence. It alleges some incestuous conduct, an incident where he allegedly was allowed to drink wine at the age of three, and states, "I think I can remember my Dad used to spank us with a belt sometimes."
The court then stated that he had "reviewed the entire file in (the) matter."
The only in-court witness was Desmond Fung, M.D. He interviewed the minors' mother and wrote the report dated March 17, 1980.
Dr. Fung testified Mrs. S. is socially very isolated and is prone to feeling depressed and helpless.
He indicated that she had successfully associated herself with an elderly Vietnamese couple. He recommended assistance for her in caring for the children, perhaps by means of live-in help or day care, so that she could free herself for activities that would promote her own growth, such as learning English, learning to drive and learning more about American culture. He felt that the alternative of temporary removal of the children from her would be traumatic and thereby hinder her growth.
An Interlocutory Judgment of Dissolution of the marriage of the parties, dated December 4, 1979, was received into evidence upon request of appellant's counsel.
Three Patton State Hospital Summaries were then received into evidence on the Department of Public Social Services' request.
The first summary, dated February 27, 1979, was written when appellant was a new admission. It indicates a satisfactory adjustment to his unit and progress in acknowledging the severity of the crime and in developing family skills, communication skills and tension reduction skills and assertiveness. It states, "Patient is well motivated for therapy and cooperates with staff."
The second is dated August 21, 1979, and indicates that at that time, appellant had been treated for about nine months, and had demonstrated an increased awareness of his own sexuality and respect for the sexuality of others and demonstrated an adequate level of knowledge in the area of human sexuality. It indicates that he felt guilt regarding the separation of the children from their mother and the possible impending divorce. It also indicates that he was beginning to realize the psychological damage he may have caused the children and was willing to accept the responsibility...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blake C., In re
...civil in nature. (See In re Angelia P., supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 919, 171 Cal.Rptr. 637, 623 P.2d 198; cf. In re Michael S. (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 348, 363, 179 Cal.Rptr. 546 [dependency proceedings].) "The purpose of the statute is to protect children, not to punish a criminal offender. The i......
-
Kristin H., In re
...are civil in nature and that their primary purpose is not to prosecute the parent but to protect the child. (In re Michael S. (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 348, 363-364, 179 Cal.Rptr. 546; In re Mary S., supra, 186 Cal.App.3d 414, 230 Cal.Rptr. 726.) Several assumptions underlie this reasoning: civ......
-
Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. M.B. (In re A.R.)
... ... Alameda County Social Services Agency, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.B., Defendant and Appellant. S260928 Supreme Court of California. April 5, 2021 Louise E. Collari, Danville, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Michael J. Levy and Catherine Blakemore, Sacramento, for California Commission on Access to Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Raymond A. Cardozo, San Francisco, Dennis A. Fischer, Santa Monica, Scott M. Reddie, Fresno, Robin Meadow, Robert Gerstein, Rex S. Heinke, Los Angeles, ... ...
-
In re Rubisela E.
...petitions seeking to declare children dependents on this basis. (In re Dorothy I. (1984) 162 Cal. App.3d 1154, 1157-1158 ; In re Michael S., supra, 127 Cal.App.3d 348 [overruled on other grounds in In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1667, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 722]; In re Edward C. (1981......