In re O.M. CA2
O.M., Sr., (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order declining his request to have his son, O.M., Jr. (O., born May 2016), returned to his custody at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.21, subdivision (f), hearing. He contends that the juvenile court’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. He also argues that the juvenile court’s monitored visitation order must be reversed because it erroneously delegated to O.’s therapist the decision of whether father should have unmonitored visits. And, in any event, the juvenile court erred in ordering father monitored visitation. Finally, father challenges the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings regarding his failure to protect his daughter, Sarah M. (Sarah, born Dec. 2017), from Edna M.’s (mother) long-standing and unresolved history of substance abuse despite the fact that she previously lost custody of seven other children, including O., due to the same problem.
Comments on In re O.M. CA2