California Court of Appeal

Juvenile court order declaring defendant's son a dependent of the juvenile court and removing the child from his custody is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err by allowing the minor's appointed counsel to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of the minor girls and did not abuse its discretion by disallowing the psychotherapist's statements; 2) the court did not deprive defendant of a fair hearing and violate his due process rights in making its findings on the girls' petitions before he completed the presentation of his case concerning his son's petition; 3) substantial evidence supports the jurisdictional findings for defendant's son under Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 300 (j); and 4) the court's decision to remove Cole was consistent with the dispositional findings and purpose of Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 361 (c).

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/04/2009
• Published 06/04/2009

Judges

• HUFFMAN, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William H. Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.


• For Appellees:
  
• Valerie N. Lankford, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., John J. Sansone, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Paula J. Roach and Michelle Neumann-Ribner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.