Skip to content
Name: In re Javier G.
Case #: D046520
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/07/2006

Following a true finding on a petition alleging that mother subjected one of the minors, Nancy, to inappropriate discipline, the court ordered foster care for Nancy and family maintenance services for the remaining minors. The following year, Nancy disclosed that she had been sexually molested by the siblings during unsupervised home visits. The court ordered mental health care for the siblings, but left them in the home. Later, it was discovered that the youngest sibling was also being molested. A 387 petition was sustained, which alleged that the previous disposition had been ineffective. The minors…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Eric E.
Case #: B173908
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 03/02/2006

The minor, Eric, was removed from mother and her husband, Robert. At the detention hearing, Robert requested the court find him to be Eric's presumed father. The court found him to be an alleged father. Subsequently, Eric's biological father, Gene, appeared, and was also offered reunification services as an alleged father. Gene failed to reunify, and his reunification services were ordered terminated. Meanwhile, Robert complied with his case plan and was given custody of Eric and his brother. Eric was closely bonded to Robert and to his brother. Both fathers filed motions to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Aaron R.
Case #: A107639
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/23/2005
Subsequent History: rehng. den. 7/18/05; rvw. den. 9/21/05

The three minors were placed with their grandmother following a true finding on a petition alleging that mother's mental illness impaired her ability to care for the children. The younger two minors were subsequently moved with a licensed foster parent, and the oldest remained with the grandmother. Reunification services were terminated to the youngest minor, an infant, Aaron, and a home study for the purposes of adoption was in progress. A section 366.26 hearing was set. Grandmother filed a 388 petition seeking a change in Aaron's placement, which was denied. Grandmother was denied the opportunity…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Brittany K.
Case #: A101698
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/30/2005
Subsequent History: Revw. den. 6/8/05

Maternal grandmother of the minors appealed from four different juvenile court orders issued after the juvenile court had terminated parental rights and denied placement with her. In a previous appeal in 2002, the appellate court had affirmed the juvenile court's placement orders in their entirety. In this appeal, grandmother challenged the juvenile court's denial of her 388 petitions (requesting a change in placement) without a hearing and the court's issuance of an order restraining her from contacting the minors and terminating her de facto parent status. The appellate court rejected grandmother's contentions and affirmed. Grandmother's petition…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Hector A.
Case #: A105633
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/07/2005

A 366.26 hearing was set for appellant's four youngest children, who were found to be adoptable. The two older children opposed the adoption, and the oldest of the four youngest children (Hector) supported it. (The three youngest were too young to express an opinion.) The two older children filed a section 388(b) petition, asking to participate in the 366.26 hearing as the siblings of the younger children who were the subject of that hearing. They contended that adoption of the younger siblings would interfere with their sibling relationship. The petition was denied, and the two…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Justice P.
Case #: D044163
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/20/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 1/12/05

The juvenile court did not err when it denied father an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 motion to modify the court's earlier rulings that he had been given adequate notice of the proceedings and that the Department had made reasonable search efforts to find him. Although the Department's delay in notifying father were inexcusable, the court may still deny a section 388 petition without a hearing if the parent does not make a prima facie showing that the relief would promote the child's best interests. Father had not seen the children for almost a year prior to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Andrew L.
Case #: B172587
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/10/2004
Subsequent History: 12/15/04 revw. den.

The juvenile court's ruling which granted a petition for modification and request for reunification services for a biological father was affirmed where father did all he could do reasonably under the circumstances to demonstrate his commitment to the minor during the reunification period, and his due process rights were thwarted by the dilatory behavior of the department caseworker. A different man was identified from the inception of the proceedings as the alleged father. Mother did not notify anyone that appellant might be the biological father until after the six month review hearing. Appellant had no way to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.O.
Case #: D043235
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/23/2004

The minors had lived with their grandparents since removal from their parents in 1999. Parental rights were terminated in 2001 and the grandparents were the prospective adoptive parents. Before the home study was completed, it was discovered that mother was living in the home, and that there had been some domestic violence, and possibly drugs in the home. The adoption was put on hold while the grandparents received mental health support services and were required to drug test and complete psych evaluations. Subsequent reports about the grandparents' behavior caused the Department to file section 387 petitions…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Miguel E.
Case #: D042403
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/08/2004
Subsequent History: 9/29/04: Revw. denied

The three minors were detained due to mother's substance abuse and mental illness. They were placed with the maternal grandmother. The minors remained in grandmother's care, which was described by the Department at the 18-month review hearing as "excellent." A section 366.26 hearing was set when mother failed to reunify. Prior to the 366.26 hearing, the Department removed the minors when it discovered that grandmother had a prior history of abuse and neglect with her own children, and that her husband, the step-grandfather, suffered from a mental illness. Further, grandmother's two daughters had moved in…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.M.
Case #: D042955
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/21/2004

In June, 2002, a judgment terminating father's parental rights was reversed because father had not received adequate notice of the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings. The appellate court did not address father's ICWA notice issue, but directed the court upon remand to give proper ICWA notice. Following remand, father gave additional evidence about the maternal great-grandmother, who may have been registered Cherokee. Notices were sent to several tribes, but the Cherokee National of Oklahoma requested more information about family members. None was sent. In July, 2003, father filed a 388 modification petition, requesting that the 366.26…

View Full Summary