In re A.T. CA3
R.T. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders concerning her two oldest children, K.H. (age 12) and A.T. (age four). She contends reversal is required because: (1) substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction over K.H. or A.T.; (2) the dispositional orders terminating dependency jurisdiction are not supported by substantial evidence; (3) the dispositional order denying reunification services as to A.T. is not supported by substantial evidence; and (4) the dispositional order limiting mother’s educational rights was issued without proper notice and is not supported by any legal or factual basis. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
Comments on In re A.T. CA3