Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD223525
SIMS, Acting P.J.THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on December 20, 2007, be modified as follows:
1. On page 4, insert new footnote 2 at the end of the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, ending in the words “resting on the minor’s shoulder for about 30 minutes. as follows and renumber the remainder of the footnotes sequentially:
Mother told the social worker that father had left the blow-dryer resting on the minor’s shoulder for five minutes.
2. On page 4, insert new footnote 3 at the end of the second to the last sentence of the first paragraph, ending in the words “third degree burns to his face and chest.” as follows and renumber the remainder of the footnotes sequentially:
Medical reports differ with respect to the degree of the minor’s burns, with one report indicating they were first and second degree burns.
3. On page 5, insert footnote 4 at the end of the last sentence of the first full paragraph, ending in the words “and his bones demonstrated diffuse trauma.” as follows and renumber the remainder of the footnotes sequentially:
The fracture of the right proximal humerus was noted in the initial medical summary. A metabolic bone disease expert also believed there was a right proximal humerus fracture, due to trauma. A third doctor also noted, “There were changes to the humeral heads that may be reflective of osteopenia or direct trauma,” but he could not say “with certainty” there was a right proximal humerus fracture.
4. On page 11, in the second full paragraph, delete the second sentence in its entirety, ending in the words “since the blow-dryer incident.” so that the paragraph now reads:
Although mother claimed to believe father that he inflicted the burns accidentally, she also told the social worker she felt it was common sense not to put a blow-dryer to a baby’s face and did not know what he was thinking. Furthermore, the explanation for father’s use of the blow-dryer not only defies common sense, it is inconsistent with his stated purpose of using “white noise,” as there would be no reason to blow the air directly on the baby’s face, close enough to burn the baby, for the purpose of using noise.
This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
Appellant (mother) Rachel R.’s petition for rehearing is denied.
HULL, J., BUTZ , J.