legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re J.J.
In these dependency cases, Christina V. (Mother) appeals from an order denying her petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] for continued reunification services (A135836), and she appeals (A136450) and petitions for a writ of habeas corpus (A137988) following denial of another section 388 petition seeking to extend her reunification services, and entry of orders terminating her parental rights to her sons J.J. and C.V., and her daughter J.V. We have granted Mother’s requests to consolidate her appeals and to consolidate the habeas petition for consideration with them, and we hereby grant her request to take judicial notice of the records in the appeals in the habeas corpus case.
In her appeals, Mother contends that the court erred when it denied her section 388 petitions without evidentiary hearings, and that her parental rights should not have been terminated because continuing the parent child relationship was in her children’s best interests. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). In her habeas petition, she argues that the order terminating her parental rights must be reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The issues are well argued on Mother’s behalf but do not raise close questions for reversal. We affirm the orders denying the section 388 petitions and terminating parental rights, and we deny the petition for habeas corpus.

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