Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 California opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2025 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
TONYA M. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2022This date was used to arrive at September 5, 2021, which the juvenile court referred to as “the statutory 12-month date.” 6 The hearing the parties in this case refer to as the “12-month review hearing” is described in the statute as the “permanency hearing” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) or “12- month permanency hearing” (id., subd. (e)(2), (3)) and also may be called the “12-month permanency review hearing.” (See Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 844 .) 13 M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 845 [describing “three distinct periods and three corresponding distinct escalating standards for the provision of 2022This date was used to arrive at September 5, 2021, which the juvenile court referred to as “the statutory 12-month date.” 6 The hearing the parties in this case refer to as the “12-month review hearing” is described in the statute as the “permanency hearing” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)) or “12- month permanency hearing” (id., subd. (e)(2), (3)) and also may be called the “12-month permanency review hearing.” (See Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 844 .) 13 M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 845 [describing “three distinct periods and three corresponding distinct escalating standards for the provision of | 3 | 4 |
In Re Aaron S.green2 sentences2022(In re J.O., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 153 .) “Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as of the date of the jurisdictional hearing, and a non-custodial parent’s failure to make arrangements before the child is removed by [the Department] does not cause the child to fall within the terms of section 300, subdivision (g).” (Ibid.; accord, In re Aaron S. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 202, 209 [“The statute requires proof that appellant was unable to arrange for care at the time of the hearing, not that he had failed to do so at some prior point in time.”].) Father contends substantia 2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother "could arrange for care" with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children's care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as | 3 | 3 |
In Re Jessegreen2 sentences2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have 2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have | 2 | 2 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jennifer M.green2 sentences2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have 2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have | 2 | 2 |
In Re James C.green2 sentences2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother “could arrange for care” with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children’s care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as 2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother “could arrange for care” with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children’s care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as | 2 | 2 |
In Re Monica C.green2 sentences2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother “could arrange for care” with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children’s care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as 2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother “could arrange for care” with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children’s care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as | 2 | 2 |
In Re Nicholas B.green2 sentences2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother "could arrange for care" with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children's care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as 2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother "could arrange for care" with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children's care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as | 2 | 2 |
In Re SDgreen2 sentences2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother “could arrange for care” with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children’s care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as 2009(See, e.g., In re S. D. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ] [issue under § 300, subd. (g) was whether incarcerated mother “could arrange for care” with out-of-state sister]; In re Monica C. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 296, 305 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 910 ] [subd. (g) applies only where parent is incapable of making plans for care of child]; see also In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470, 484 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 ] [agreeing with rule, but finding incarcerated father incapable of making preparations for children’s care].) Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as | 2 | 2 |
In Re SBgreen2 sentences2008The statute explains “a child shall be deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing held pursuant to Section 356 or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child was initially removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian.” (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3); see also In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 1164 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 ] [initial detention hearing placement is not a “foster care placement” under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 ( 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.); “foster care placement” does not occur until jurisd 2008The statute explains “a child shall be deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing held pursuant to Section 356 or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child was initially removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian.” (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3); see also In re S.B. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 1164 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 ] [initial detention hearing placement is not a “foster care placement” under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 ( 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.); “foster care placement” does not occur until jurisd | 2 | 2 |
In Re Laura F.green2 sentences2008According to our Supreme Court, an appropriately “expansive definition of a foster parent [is] ‘one who, although not legally related to the child by direct parental blood ties, nor decreed a parent in formal adoption proceedings, assumes the role of parent.’ ” (In re Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, 831, fn. 4 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 464 , 662 P.2d 922 ].) This does not describe dependents’ father: he is related to dependents by direct parental ties. 2008According to our Supreme Court, an appropriately “expansive definition of a foster parent [is] ‘one who, although not legally related to the child by direct parental blood ties, nor decreed a parent in formal adoption proceedings, assumes the role of parent.’ ” (In re Laura F. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 826, 831, fn. 4 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 464 , 662 P.2d 922 ].) This does not describe dependents’ father: he is related to dependents by direct parental ties. | 2 | 2 |
N.M. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Countygreen1 sentence2021As a general rule, if the child is under age three when initially removed from the parent’s physical custody, services shall be provided for six, but not longer than 12, months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) If the child was three years of age or older at the time of removal, services are to be provided for 12 months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) If a sibling group has a member who was under the age of three when taken into custody, services may be limited to six months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(c).) 10 The time for services runs from the dispositional hearing and ends either six or 12 months after | 1 | 1 |
ARLENA M. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2014(Cf. Arlena M. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 566, 569-570 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 321 ].) 5 The date the child entered foster care is defined as the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child was initially removed from the custody of his or her parent. (§ 361.49.) 6 A “sibling group” means two or more children who are related to each other as full or half siblings and who were removed from parental custody at the same time, and in which one member of the sibling group was under three years of age at the time of removal. 2014(Cf. Arlena M. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 566, 569-570 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 321 ].) 5 The date the child entered foster care is defined as the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child was initially removed from the custody of his or her parent. (§ 361.49.) 6 A “sibling group” means two or more children who are related to each other as full or half siblings and who were removed from parental custody at the same time, and in which one member of the sibling group was under three years of age at the time of removal. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Christopher M.green2 sentences2014Court-ordered services may be limited to six months to the members of the sibling group who are three years of age or older for the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home should reunification efforts fail. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(C).) 7 In assessing the right to a six-month review hearing, the juvenile court did not consider Alejandro’s status as J.P.’s biological father. “[A] biological father’s ‘desire to establish a personal relationship with a child, without more, is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause.’ ” (In re Ch 2014Court-ordered services may be limited to six months to the members of the sibling group who are three years of age or older for the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home should reunification efforts fail. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(C).) 7 In assessing the right to a six-month review hearing, the juvenile court did not consider Alejandro’s status as J.P.’s biological father. “[A] biological father’s ‘desire to establish a personal relationship with a child, without more, is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause.’ ” (In re Ch | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christopher D. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have 2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have | 2 | 2022–2022 |
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. M.F. (In re M.F.)
green
2 sentences2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have 2022(Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 ; In re Katelynn Y. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 871, 876 (Katelynn Y.).) Reunification services for the parent of a child who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal are generally provided with a presumptive minimum of six months of services, but no longer than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, unless the child is returned to the home of the parent. (§ 361.5(a)(1)(B); In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 21 ; In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 (Jesse W.).)5 5 A child is “deemed to have | 2 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Christina A.
green
2 sentences2021As a general rule, if the child is under age three when initially removed from the parent’s physical custody, services shall be provided for six, but not longer than 12, months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) If the child was three years of age or older at the time of removal, services are to be provided for 12 months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) If a sibling group has a member who was under the age of three when taken into custody, services may be limited to six months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(c).) 10 The time for services runs from the dispositional hearing and ends either six or 12 months after 2004McDonald, Acting P. J., and Irion, J., concurred. 2 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. * See footnote, ante, page 636. 3 In In re Christina A., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1153 , the reviewing court was concerned with a lack of consistency between sections 366.21, subdivision (e) and 366, subdivision (a)(1), which refer to the six-month review hearing as being held six months after the initial disposition hearing as compared with section 361.5, subdivision (a)(2), which provides that court-ordered services for a child who was under the age of three at the time of remo | 2 | 2004–2021 |
RENEE S. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001"The dependency system seeks to keep to a minimum the amount of potential detriment to a minor resulting from . . . delay. [Citation.] `[D]elay disserves the interests of the minor, the parents, and the courts, and is clearly inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature. *317 [Citation.]" ( Renee S. v. Superior Court, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 193 , 90 Cal. Rptr.2d 134 .) It is this purpose that the Legislature apparently had in mind when it amended section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1) and (a)(2) to provide that the duration of court-ordered services shall be measured from "the date the chil 2001“The dependency system seeks to keep to a minimum the amount of potential detriment to a minor resulting from . . . delay. [Citation.] ‘[D]elay disserves the interests of the minor, the parents, and the courts, and is clearly inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature.’ [Citation.]” (Renee S. v. Superior Court, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 193 .) It is this purpose that the Legislature apparently had in mind when it amended section 361.5, subdivision (a)(1) and (2) to provide that the duration of court-ordered services shall be measured from “the date the child entered foster care,” i.e., | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Luis V.
green
1 sentence2025(See In re Briana V. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 297, 311 .) Although it is not entirely clear from the briefing, Father appears to be arguing that the evidence does not support— and the petition does not even allege—that, as of the date of the jurisdictional hearing, he was addicted to drugs or alcohol, or that he generally struggled with substance abuse issues to such an extent that ordering him to complete a full substance abuse treatment program with aftercare was “tailored to eliminate legitimate protective issues.” He argues that, instead, the evidence supports at most that he has in the past | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Nm
green
2 sentences2023Efforts should resume if the parent: (1) received less than 12 months of child welfare services (§§ 361.5, subd. (a), 366.21, subd. (e)); or (2) did not receive reasonable child welfare services (§§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1), 366.22, subd. (a)); or (3) the case has passed the 12- month mark but there is a substantial probability the child 19 will be returned within 18 months of the date the child was originally removed from the parent’s physical custody. (§ 366.21, subd. (g); In re N.M. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 845, 853 .) The 12-month limitation on services begins to run either on the date of the ju 2023Efforts should resume if the parent: (1) received less than 12 months of child welfare services (§§ 361.5, subd. (a), 366.21, subd. (e)); or (2) did not receive reasonable child welfare services (§§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1), 366.22, subd. (a)); or (3) the case has passed the 12- month mark but there is a substantial probability the child 19 will be returned within 18 months of the date the child was originally removed from the parent’s physical custody. (§ 366.21, subd. (g); In re N.M. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 845, 853 .) The 12-month limitation on services begins to run either on the date of the ju | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Mary G.
green
1 sentence2023(In re Heraclio A. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 569, 577 .) “ ‘A petition which alleges merely changing circumstances and would mean delaying the selection of a permanent home for a child to see if a parent . . . might be able to reunify at some future point, does not promote stability for the child or the child’s best interests.’ ” (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th 184, 206 .) To decide a 388 petition, the court may consider the entire history of the case. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Heraclio A.
green
1 sentence2023(In re Heraclio A. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 569, 577 .) “ ‘A petition which alleges merely changing circumstances and would mean delaying the selection of a permanent home for a child to see if a parent . . . might be able to reunify at some future point, does not promote stability for the child or the child’s best interests.’ ” (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal. App.4th 184, 206 .) To decide a 388 petition, the court may consider the entire history of the case. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Jasmon O.
green
1 sentence2023(Jasmon, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 419 .) Termination of services “ordinarily constitutes a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights.” (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231 , 236–237.) A 388 petition must demonstrate “a substantial change in circumstances” such that modification will promote the child’s 2 A child enters foster care on the date of the jurisdictional hearing or 60 days after his or her initial removal, whichever is earlier. (§ 361.49.) Sixty days from B.C.’s detention hearing is December 29, 2020. 12 best interests. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re KC
green
1 sentence2023(Jasmon, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 419 .) Termination of services “ordinarily constitutes a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights.” (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231 , 236–237.) A 388 petition must demonstrate “a substantial change in circumstances” such that modification will promote the child’s 2 A child enters foster care on the date of the jurisdictional hearing or 60 days after his or her initial removal, whichever is earlier. (§ 361.49.) Sixty days from B.C.’s detention hearing is December 29, 2020. 12 best interests. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re JO
green
1 sentence2022(In re J.O., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 153 .) “Whether a parent can arrange for care is to be determined as of the date of the jurisdictional hearing, and a non-custodial parent’s failure to make arrangements before the child is removed by [the Department] does not cause the child to fall within the terms of section 300, subdivision (g).” (Ibid.; accord, In re Aaron S. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 202, 209 [“The statute requires proof that appellant was unable to arrange for care at the time of the hearing, not that he had failed to do so at some prior point in time.”].) Father contends substantia | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shahida R.
green
1 sentence2022(In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1384 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303 , 322.) The juvenile court’s finding that, as of the date of the jurisdictional hearing, the domestic violence between father and mother was likely to continue (thereby continuing to pose a substantial risk of serious physical harm to M. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Los Angeles County v. David H.
green
1 sentence2021(In re Kadence P. (2015) 241 7 Cal.App.4th 1376 , 1384, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re A.M. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 303 , 322.) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Joseph and Jayden, as of the date of the jurisdictional hearing, face a “substantial risk” of “serious physical harm” because substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that the domestic violence between mother and father “is ongoing or likely to continue.” (Daisy H., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 717 .) Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re EB
green
1 sentence2020(Cf. In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 [holding substantial evidence supported a finding that the mother failed to protect the children from the father’s domestic abuse where the mother remained in abusive relationship and returned to the father despite the abuse], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7; In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 , 462 [same where the mother allowed the father to have unsupervised contact with the children close in time to the jurisdictional hearing and was unsure if she would reunite with him].) Thus, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re SO
green
1 sentence2020(Cf. In re E.B. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568 , 576 [holding substantial evidence supported a finding that the mother failed to protect the children from the father’s domestic abuse where the mother remained in abusive relationship and returned to the father despite the abuse], disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7; In re S.O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 , 462 [same where the mother allowed the father to have unsupervised contact with the children close in time to the jurisdictional hearing and was unsure if she would reunite with him].) Thus, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Desiree M.
green
1 sentence2014(See In re Desiree M. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 329, 333 .) 7 Section 361.49 provides, “Regardless of his or her age, a child shall be deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the jurisdictional hearing held pursuant to Section 356 or the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child was initially removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian.” A.E. and Zachary were removed from their parents’ physical custody on September 7, 2012. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| DAWNEL D. v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
JESSICA A. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2006A delay in holding the six-month review hearing should not provide grounds to permit the parties to circumvent the clear intent of the dependency scheme by extending other time limitations contained in the statutes." ( Id. at p. 645, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 488 .) The court noted that parents would not be prejudiced by its interpretation of the statute: "[Reunification services commence on the date of the jurisdictional hearing, so that by the time set for the 12-month hearing, *470 the mother would have received a full year of services—which is precisely what is envisioned by the dependency statutory 2006A delay in holding the six-month review hearing should not provide grounds to permit the parties to circumvent the clear intent of the dependency scheme by extending other time limitations contained in the statutes." ( Id. at p. 645, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 488 .) The court noted that parents would not be prejudiced by its interpretation of the statute: "[Reunification services commence on the date of the jurisdictional hearing, so that by the time set for the 12-month hearing, *470 the mother would have received a full year of services—which is precisely what is envisioned by the dependency statutory | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.