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 Jaden E.

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

September 19, 2014

In re Jaden E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KIA E., Defendant and Appellant.

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]]

San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. JV82349 Honorable Susan Etezadi

Page 1278

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1279

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1280

COUNSEL

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John C. Beirs, County Counsel and Peter K. Finck, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

REARDON, J.

In this dependency appeal, Kia E. (mother) seeks relief from the juvenile court order terminating the discretionary reunification services she was receiving pursuant to subdivision (b)(3) of section 361.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.[1] Specifically, mother claims that the services offered to her were unreasonable and therefore termination of those services was improper. There appears to have been some confusion in the juvenile court regarding the appropriate legal standards to apply when a dependant minor has been placed with a noncustodial parent pursuant to section 361.2 and reunification services are offered to the previously custodial parent under that statute. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that—when a minor is placed with a previously noncustodial parent at disposition pursuant to section 361.2—a reasonable services finding need not be made at subsequent hearings monitoring that placement. Nevertheless, seeing no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s reunification services, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND[*]

II. DISCUSSION

Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the San Mateo County Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to provide her with reasonable reunification services. Thus, she claims, the juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were offered to her was erroneous, and its subsequent order terminating those services must be reversed. She requests an order ...


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.