legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Je.S. CA3
Appellant J. S. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 et seq. exercising dependency jurisdiction over his minor children, Je. S. and A. S., and removing them from his custody and care. He argues the court erred in making dispositional findings based on his submission to jurisdiction when it was unclear whether he understood the consequences of submitting on the jurisdiction report. He further contends the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to set aside his no contest plea (although father did not plead no contest but rather submitted on the jurisdiction report), as his submission was not knowingly and intelligently made.
We conclude that any alleged error in advising father of his rights and obtaining a waiver before ruling on the petition was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the court did not err in denying father’s motion to set aside a “no contest plea” which in fact he never made. We affirm.

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