legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Brandy R.
Daisy R. (mother) appeals from a postjudgment order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1] terminating her parental rights to her 20-month-old daughter, Brandy R., and freeing the child for adoption. Mothers sole contention is that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hold the .26 hearing until issuance of the remittitur after our denial of mothers previous writ petition. (Daisy R. v. Superior Court (Sept. 1, 2006, G037130) [nonpub. opn.].) The petition pertained to orders at the six-month review hearing when the court scheduled the .26 hearing. ( 366.26; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452, formerly rule 38.1.) For a factual and procedural history of the case, Court refer the parties to our opinion, referenced ante. In light of the very narrow issue before us, Court need not reiterate the material or discuss events leading up to the time of the .26 hearing. Court note that despite the vast array of supportive services provided to mother through the duration of two dependency proceedings, her cognitive limitations presented an insurmountable hurdle to her acquisition of parenting skills adequate to protect her child. Brandy, now nearly two years old, is transitioning for adoption by the caregivers who have provided a home for her since shortly after her birth. She has bonded with her four year old brother, Nathan, earlier adopted by the same family.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

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

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale