Skip to content
Name: In re A.L.
Case #: D057412
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/17/2010
Summary

Where the mother’s parental rights were reinstated after appeal, it was error not to also reinstate the father’s rights. Following an order terminating parental rights, the appellate court reversed orders denying the mother’s section 388 petition. Upon remand, the juvenile court reinstated the mother’s parental rights, but not the father’s. The father appealed, contending that the juvenile court erred because the reversal was unqualified, and in effect voided the entire judgment. The appellate court agreed and reversed. When the court reversed the order denying the mother’s 388 petition, it necessarily vacated the section 366.26 hearing and the order of adoption. The disposition presupposes that the orders from the 366.26 hearing were no longer valid. Further, a court may not terminate the parental rights of only one parent. Since the mother’s rights were reinstated, it was in the best interest of the minors for the father’s rights to be reinstated as well.