legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re A.M. CA5
K.M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order made at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month review hearing. K.M. is the father of mother’s youngest child, A.M. At the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children returned to mother’s care, after it found she made substantial progress in her case plan. Reunification services were terminated for K.M., as he failed to participate in services. K.M. appeals only the juvenile court’s visitation order, which read “visitation between [K.M.] and [A.M.] shall be supervised in accordance with the case plan.” The Kings County Human Services Agency (Agency) argues, inter alia, that K.M. forfeited his challenge to the visitation order by failing to object to it in the juvenile court.

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