Opinion ID: 1241212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: exclusion of evidence regarding appellants' other child

Text: (3) The appellants assert that the trial court erred in excluding testimony concerning Mrs. P.'s kindly treatment of appellants' younger daughter, Lisa. After hearing preliminary testimony proffered by appellants regarding Lisa's general well-being in the care of her mother, the court ruled that further evidence regarding Lisa was irrelevant. Appellants argue that the evidence should have been admitted as relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. (Evid. Code, § 210.) It is true that an order to free a child from parental custody and control must rest on present circumstances as well as past acts although such prior acts are evidence which may be considered by the court in deciding whether there is sufficient showing to justify the order. ( In re Carmaleta B., supra, 21 Cal.3d, at p. 493.) However, a trial court has wide discretion in determining the relevancy of the evidence. ( Larson v. Solbakken (1963) 221 Cal. App.2d 410, 420 [34 Cal. Rptr. 450].) No issue regarding appellants' treatment of Lisa had been raised by any pleading in the case, nor did the Department assert that Mrs. P. had physically abused Angelia directly. Evidence regarding Lisa therefore was of doubtful relevance. It was undisputed that Lisa received adequate care during the period when Mr. P., who had actively abused Angelia, was absent from the home. The primary question presented at the hearing was whether section 232 applied to appellants' treatment of Angelia. The trial court here was well within its discretion in refusing to admit the proffered evidence.