Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Gino C.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

March 14, 2014

In re GINO C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERICK P. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J518615 A-B, Cynthia A. Bashant, Laura J. Birkmeyer, and David B. Oberholtzer, Judges.

Page 960

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 961

COUNSEL

Rosemary Bishop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Erick P.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sabrina R.

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Paula J. Roach, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

McCONNELL, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

A father (father) and mother (mother) appeal a judgment declaring their minor children dependents and denying placement of the children with father.

Page 962

Father contends the juvenile court erred in assuming permanent subject matter jurisdiction over the matter because the court did not comply with the requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) beforehand.[1] Mother joins in this contention to the extent it inures to her benefit. Father and mother additionally contend the court failed to find by clear and convincing evidence placement of the children with father would be detrimental to the children. They also contend the court erred in determining father was a custodial parent at the time the dependency arose and, consequently, the court applied the wrong standard in determining whether to place the children with him.

We need not address the latter two contentions because respondent San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) concedes, and we agree, the court did not properly comply with the UCCJEA before assuming permanent subject matter jurisdiction. We ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.