legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Jim M.
Mai M. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26) to his two-year-old son, Jim M. At the section 366.26 hearing, he as well as the childs mother unsuccessfully asked the court to find that termination would be detrimental to Jim. Each parent claimed to have a beneficial parent/child relationship ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) with Jim. Appellant contends the court erred because he produced sufficient evidence to warrant a detriment finding. He also joins in other arguments raised in the mothers appeal (In re Jim M.; F051126) and related to the courts rejection of their section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) claims. On review, Court conclude the court did not abuse its discretion and 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
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale