legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re H.D. CA4/3
Mother appeals from an order at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing (.26 hearing) terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan. She contends the court erred in three ways.
First, she contends she had stipulated to a dispositional order denying her reunification services on the condition that she be granted a drug patch. The drug patch was ordered, but the referral form did not check a particular box indicating it was funded. Nonetheless, the patch was authorized, and mother never attempted to have it applied. We conclude she forfeited her right to a drug patch. Even assuming the patch was inadvertently unfunded, funding was clearly authorized, and mother could have resolved that problem early in the case.

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