In re K.K. CA2/8
APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Couenhoven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel and Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel for Respondent.
___________________________
INTRODUCTION
Christopher M. (Father), presumed father of minor K.K., appeals from the juvenile court’s order removing K.K. from his and K.K.’s mother’s custody. Father asserts two points of error. On the first point of error, he argues that removal was not supported by substantial evidence for two reasons. One reason is that it was impossible for the court to both (i) find Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1)’s, predicate substantial danger to K.K. had been established, but (ii) allow unlimited visitation by Father and unlimited daytime visitation by Mother. The second reason is that respondent Los Angeles County Department o
Comments on In re K.K. CA2/8