Skip to content
Name: Karen H. v. Superior Court
Case #: C038357
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/10/2001
Subsequent History: None

The trial court properly found that appellant had "resisted treatment" under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) where she participated in treatment, but continued to abuse drugs and alcohol, thus demonstrating her inability to use the skills taught to maintain sobriety. Therefore the trial court properly denied reunification to mother under that section, and mother’s extraordinary writ was…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Nicholas H.
Case #: A092188
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/31/2001
Subsequent History: Review granted 11/14/01 (S100490)

Editor's Note: review granted on this case. Appellant was not the biological father of the dependent minor, but lived with the minor and argued that he should be considered the presumed father. The trial court granted appellant presumed father status. The appellate court here reversed. Although appellant qualified as a presumed father under Family Code section 7611(d), the presumption was rebutted by appellant’s own admission under oath that he was not the biological father of the child. The presumption set forth in section 7611 is a presumption that the biological father of the child is in…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Patricia T.
Case #: B143242
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 08/07/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 11/14/01. Decision without pub opinion.

Where a parent waived her rights and admitted the allegations of the petition at the dispositional hearing, her waiver of reunification services was also valid. Mother submitted a form waiving her rights, including an advisement that reunification services might not be offered, and signed a declaration that her attorney had explained the consequences of admitting the petition. The totality of the circumstances showed that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived her rights, and that she fully understood the consequences. Under California Rules of Court, rule 1449, a parent admitting a petition must be advised of the possible consequences…

View Full Summary
Name: Francisco G. v. Superior Court
Case #: H022860
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/10/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was the father of the minor child in question, and was not offered reunification services in this dependency proceeding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)(b), (prior termination of parental rights). On appeal, he argued that the bypass provisions did not apply to him because he was not a presumed father, and therefore not a "parent" in the prior proceedings. The appellate court here denied father’s extraordinary writ. The bypass provisions can be applied to a father whose parental rights to a sibling or half-sibling were terminated while his status in the previous dependency…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jasmine P.
Case #: B146014
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/13/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 10/10/01

The juvenile court ordered the minor, Jasmine, placed in a legal guardianship with her grandmother as a permanent plan. The order made no provision for visitation between Jasmine and her mother, and mother did not seek a visitation order at the trial level. On appeal, mother argued that the juvenile court had a mandatory duty to make a visitation order or find that visitation would be detrimental, and therefore the issue was not waived on appeal. The appellate court here affirmed. Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.36, subdivision (c)(4), did not mandate that the court make…

View Full Summary
Name: Renee J. v. Superior Court
Case #: S090730
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/16/2001
Subsequent History: None

Mother was denied reunification services under subdivision (b)(10) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, (prior failed reunification[subpart A] or prior termination [subpart B], where the parent has not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems which led to removal). At issue in this Supreme Court opinion was whether the language about reasonable efforts applies to both sections of section (b)(10), or only to the later section regarding termination. The court here held that the no-reasonable-effort clause was applicable only to subpart (B) of section 361.5, subd. (b)(10). Therefore the Court of Appeal’s opinion granting mother’s relief…

View Full Summary