legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re A.R.

In re A.R.
02:17:2007

In re A

In re A.R.

Filed 1/9/07  In re A.R. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION TWO

In re A.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,

            Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BILLIE S.,

            Defendant and Appellant.

            E040022

            (Super.Ct.No. J203603)

            O P I N I O N

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Deborah A. Daniel, Temporary Judge.  (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, §  21.)  Affirmed.

            Lisa A. DiGrazia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Dennis E. Wagner, Interim County Counsel, and Julie J. Surber, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

INTRODUCTION

            Appellant, Billie S. (mother), appeals from a February 8, 2006, dispositional order regarding her son, A.R., born in June 2001.  She first contends that insufficient evidence supports several of the court's factual findings which the court relied on in assuming jurisdiction over A.R., and that these factual findings must therefore be vacated.  We reject this contention, because substantial evidence supports the court's assumption of jurisdiction over A.R. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b),[1] and the court's other factual findings are moot for purposes of jurisdiction. 

Mother further contends the court failed to make the required â€





Description Appellant, mother, appeals from a February 8, 2006, dispositional order regarding her son, born in June 2001. Mother first contends that insufficient evidence supports several of the court's factual findings which the court relied on in assuming jurisdiction over minor, and that these factual findings must therefore be vacated. Court reject this contention, because substantial evidence supports the court's assumption of jurisdiction over minor under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), and the court's other factual findings are moot for purposes of jurisdiction.
Mother further contends the court failed to make the required "no reasonable efforts" finding in denying her services for minor under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). Court also reject this contention, on the grounds the court implicitly made the required "no reasonable efforts" finding and substantial evidence supports the finding. Accordingly, court affirm the dispositional order regarding minor.

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