legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Stephanie G.

In re Stephanie G.
09:16:2006

In re Stephanie G.







Filed 9/13/06 In re Stephanie G. CA2/5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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














In re STEPHANIE G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.



B189865


(Los Angeles County


Super. Ct. No. BK31934)



LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


MARIA C.,


Defendant and Appellant.




APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.


Donna Balderston Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., Los Angeles County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Steven E. Henry, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


I. introduction



Maria C., the mother of Stephanie G. (who was born May 1995) and Felipe G. (who was born May 1996), appeals from juvenile court orders denying a Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petition to modify a custody order and terminating parental rights. The mother claims that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition and erred in failing to apply the beneficial relationship exception pursuant to section 366.26 subdivision (c)(1)(A). We affirm.


II. background



On February 19, 2004, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (â€





Description Dependency proceeding where mother of minor appealed from juvenile court orders denying a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to modify a custody order and terminating parental rights. The mother claims that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition and erred in failing to apply the beneficial relationship exception pursuant to section 366.26 subdivision (c)(1)(A). Court affirmed the juvenile court.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale