legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Anthony A

In re Anthony A
06:19:2007


In re Anthony A



Filed 8/30/06 In re Anthony A. CA2/3


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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




SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT





DIVISION THREE















In re ANTHONY A., a Minor.




CECILY A.,


Petitioner,


v.


THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,


Respondent;


LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,


Real Party In Interest.



B191018


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. CK57436)



ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Robert Stevenson, Referee. Petition denied.


Claire Boudov, under appointment by the Superior Court, for Defendant and Appellant.


Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


_______________________________


INTRODUCTION


Petitioner Cecily A., a minor parent, is the mother of Anthony A., who was detained at nine months of age.[1] In a Petition for Extraordinary Writ, mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating reunification services and scheduling a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[2] to implement a long term plan for Anthony. Specifically, mother asserts that the juvenile court violated the Teen Parents in Foster Care Act (§§ 16002.5 & 16004.5), quoted below, when it determined that real party in interest, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), had provided reasonable reunification services. Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by failing to order an additional six months of reunification services.


We affirm the juvenile court order. On this record, the juvenile court order finding that the DCFS provided mother with reasonable reunification services is supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the reunification services provided complied with the Teen Parents in Foster Care Act.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


Because this case involves the issue of whether the reunification services were reasonable and complied with the Teen Parents in Foster Care Act, we set forth the services provided to mother in detail.


1. Birth of Anthony and Referral to the DCFS


In March 2004, mother was 14 years old when she gave birth to Anthony by emergency cesarean section after 24 weeks gestation. Anthony was born extremely premature. He was born suffering from respiratory distress, possible neonatal seizure disorder, Ostepoenia of prematurity, nutritional support, Apnea, Bardycardia, Hydonephrosis, and vocal fold granulation tissue.


Anthony was diagnosed with chronic lung disease, chronic subdural Hematoma and seizures. Queen of the Valley Hospital, where Anthony was born, offered mother training on how to care for Anthony's needs.


After six-months, a medical social worker at the hospital became concerned because Anthony was considered â€





Description A decision as to a Petition for Extraordinary Writ, mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating reunification services and scheduling a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale