In re Michelle J

Filed 8/24/06 In re Michelle J. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

In re MICHELLE J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B188964

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. CK37072)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

NORMAN J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Debra Loznick, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Reversed.

Pamela Rae Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the County Counsel, Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel and Jerry M. Custis, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Norman J. (Father) challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders sustaining allegations in a November 2005 petition removing his daughter Michelle from his control.[1] He challenges both the legal adequacy of notice given to him and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the juvenile court's rulings. Concluding that his illness and medical incapacity were not reason to remove Michelle when she was placed by the Department with the aunt whom Father had arranged to watch her, we shall reverse the orders.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

Earlier proceedings involving the family

The three children and their older sister were living with their mother in 1998 when a dependency petition in San Bernardino was sustained on their behalf. They were placed with maternal aunt Connie and uncle Craig and, when their mother failed to reunify with them, in 2000 Connie was appointed their legal guardian.[2] That case was closed in 2003.

Father, employed by the United States Army as a civilian contractor, reportedly did not know the children's whereabouts for several years after their mother took off with them. He has had â€

Description	Appellant challenges the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders sustaining allegations in a November 2005 petition removing his daughter from his control. Appellant challenges both the legal adequacy of notice given to him and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the juvenile court's rulings. Concluding that his illness and medical incapacity were not reason to remove minor when she was placed by the Department with the aunt whom Father had arranged to watch her, court reverse the orders.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.