In re Andrew D.
In re Andrew D.
02:17:2007
In re Andrew D.
Filed 2/14/07 In re Andrew D. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re ANDREW D., JR., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANDREW D., SR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F050998
(Super. Ct. No. 03CEJ30029-2)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Mary R. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Andrew D., Sr., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his namesake son. Appellant joins in the argument advanced by the child's mother in her appeal, In re Curtice B. et al. (case No. F050905). The mother challenged the trial court's rejection of her argument that termination would be detrimental to Andrew and his half brother based on their relationship with her. Having reviewed the appellate record, we concluded the trial court could properly find there was no compelling reason to find termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the children. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)
Because the father in his appeal raised no independent claim of error, we conclude the court properly terminated his parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Dawson, J.
02:17:2007
Filed 2/14/07 In re Andrew D. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re ANDREW D., JR., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANDREW D., SR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
F050998
(Super. Ct. No. 03CEJ30029-2)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jamileh Schwartzbart, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Mary R. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dennis A. Marshall, County Counsel, and William G. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Andrew D., Sr., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) to his namesake son. Appellant joins in the argument advanced by the child's mother in her appeal, In re Curtice B. et al. (case No. F050905). The mother challenged the trial court's rejection of her argument that termination would be detrimental to Andrew and his half brother based on their relationship with her. Having reviewed the appellate record, we concluded the trial court could properly find there was no compelling reason to find termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the children. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)
Because the father in his appeal raised no independent claim of error, we conclude the court properly terminated his parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Dawson, J.
| Description | Andrew D., Sr., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code,S 366.26) to his namesake son. Appellant joins in the argument advanced by the child's mother in her appeal, In re Curtice B. et al. (case No. F050905). The mother challenged the trial court"s rejection of her argument that termination would be detrimental to Andrew and his half brother based on their relationship with her. Having reviewed the appellate record, we concluded the trial court could properly find there was no compelling reason to find termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the children. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) Because the father in his appeal raised no independent claim of error, we conclude the court properly terminated his parental rights. |
| Rating |
