legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Marie F.-A. v. Super Ct.
In June 2007, the juvenile court sustained allegations of a supplemental dependency petition and found that removal of minors Amanda and Aaron A. from the home of petitioner Marie F.-A. was required. It denied reunification services and set an October 16 date for a permanency planning hearing. (See Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] 366.26.) Marie petitions for review of the removal order. (See 387.) She challenges the juvenile courts finding that a substantial risk of detriment to Amanda and Aaron existed if the minors were returned to her care, contending that this finding was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. She also challenges the juvenile courts July order terminating reunification services, asserting that the juvenile court erred by failing to offer her continued reunification service once the supplemental petition was sustained. Finally, Marie seeks a stay of the scheduled permanency planning hearing. Real party in interest San Mateo County Human Services Agency opposes her petition. Court deny the petition on the merits.

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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale