legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re B.H. CA4/3
M.H. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order issued at the six month review hearing which terminated his reunification services for his daughter B.H. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (e).) At the hearing, the court found Father continued to be unwilling to participate in services and concluded services would be “a poor use of resources.” The court also found that the rule generally limiting reunification services to six months from the date of the disposition hearing applied because, in the words of the statute, B.H., “on the date of [her] initial removal from the physical custody of the child’s parent or guardian, was under three years of age.” (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B), hereafter sometimes § 361.5(a)(1)(B).) Father had therefore reached the limit of his services under the statute. (Ibid.)
Father contends he was entitled to a minimum of a year of reunification services, not just six months.

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