contested disposition hearing in California

2015Its purpose is to maximize a child’s opportunity to develop into a stable, well-adjusted adult.” [Citation.]’ ” (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 ].) We review the juvenile court’s order for abuse of discretion. “[R]eversal is warranted only if there is no reasonable basis upon which the trial court could conclude that its decision advanced the best interests of the child.” (In re Marriage of Melville (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 601, 610 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 ] (Melville).) Here, at the time of the contested disposition hearing, the Agency had completed a portio

2015Its purpose is to maximize a child’s opportunity to develop into a stable, well-adjusted adult.” [Citation.]’ ” (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 ].) We review the juvenile court’s order for abuse of discretion. “[R]eversal is warranted only if there is no reasonable basis upon which the trial court could conclude that its decision advanced the best interests of the child.” (In re Marriage of Melville (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 601, 610 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 ] (Melville).) Here, at the time of the contested disposition hearing, the Agency had completed a portio

1998He also was entitled to a disposition hearing and he made a specific request for a contested disposition hearing to present to the court other alternatives to suitable placement. (§§ 706, 706.5, 725.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1492; In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1247 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ]; In re Mikkelsen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 467, 471 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; In re Francis W. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 892, 898 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 277 ].) It is well established that “ ‘ [t]he court is required to examine the entire [and current] dispositional picture whenever the minor comes before the co

1998He also was entitled to a disposition hearing and he made a specific request for a contested disposition hearing to present to the court other alternatives to suitable placement. (§§ 706, 706.5, 725.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1492; In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1247 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ]; In re Mikkelsen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 467, 471 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; In re Francis W. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 892, 898 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 277 ].) It is well established that “ ‘ [t]he court is required to examine the entire [and current] dispositional picture whenever the minor comes before the co

1998He also was entitled to a disposition hearing and he made a specific request for a contested disposition hearing to present to the court other alternatives to suitable placement. (§§ 706, 706.5, 725.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1492; In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1247 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ]; In re Mikkelsen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 467, 471 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; In re Francis W. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 892, 898 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 277 ].) It is well established that “ ‘ [t]he court is required to examine the entire [and current] dispositional picture whenever the minor comes before the co

1998He also was entitled to a disposition hearing and he made a specific request for a contested disposition hearing to present to the court other alternatives to suitable placement. (§§ 706, 706.5, 725.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1492; In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1247 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ]; In re Mikkelsen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 467, 471 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; In re Francis W. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 892, 898 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 277 ].) It is well established that “ ‘ [t]he court is required to examine the entire [and current] dispositional picture whenever the minor comes before the co

1998Accordingly, we will reverse the court's orders of wardship and suitable placement and order upon remand that the court hold a contested disposition hearing. ( In re Ronnie P. (1992) 10 Cal. App.4th 1079, 1091 [ 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 875 ]; In re James H. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 911, 921-922 [ 212 Cal. Rptr. 61 ].) DISPOSITION The orders under review are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new disposition hearing in conformity with the views expressed herein.

1998Accordingly, we will reverse the court's orders of wardship and suitable placement and order upon remand that the court hold a contested disposition hearing. ( In re Ronnie P. (1992) 10 Cal. App.4th 1079, 1091 [ 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 875 ]; In re James H. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 911, 921-922 [ 212 Cal. Rptr. 61 ].) DISPOSITION The orders under review are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new disposition hearing in conformity with the views expressed herein.

1998He also was entitled to a disposition hearing and he made a specific request for a contested disposition hearing to present to the court other alternatives to suitable placement. (§§ 706, 706.5, 725.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1492; In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1247 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ]; In re Mikkelsen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 467, 471 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; In re Francis W. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 892, 898 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 277 ].) It is well established that “ ‘ [t]he court is required to examine the entire [and current] dispositional picture whenever the minor comes before the co

1998He also was entitled to a disposition hearing and he made a specific request for a contested disposition hearing to present to the court other alternatives to suitable placement. (§§ 706, 706.5, 725.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1492; In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1247 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ]; In re Mikkelsen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 467, 471 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; In re Francis W. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 892, 898 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 277 ].) It is well established that “ ‘ [t]he court is required to examine the entire [and current] dispositional picture whenever the minor comes before the co

1998It cannot treat an earlier order as “self-executing” or “automatic.” ’ ” (In re Jorge Q. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 223, 238 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ].) Appellant was entitled to notice, to have a current social study prepared for the hearing and to produce evidence indicating there were other more appropriate dispositions available to the court.

1998It cannot treat an earlier order as “self-executing” or “automatic.” ’ ” (In re Jorge Q. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 223, 238 [ 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ].) Appellant was entitled to notice, to have a current social study prepared for the hearing and to produce evidence indicating there were other more appropriate dispositions available to the court.

1998Accordingly, we will reverse the court's orders of wardship and suitable placement and order upon remand that the court hold a contested disposition hearing. ( In re Ronnie P. (1992) 10 Cal. App.4th 1079, 1091 [ 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 875 ]; In re James H. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 911, 921-922 [ 212 Cal. Rptr. 61 ].) DISPOSITION The orders under review are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new disposition hearing in conformity with the views expressed herein.

1998Accordingly, we will reverse the court's orders of wardship and suitable placement and order upon remand that the court hold a contested disposition hearing. ( In re Ronnie P. (1992) 10 Cal. App.4th 1079, 1091 [ 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 875 ]; In re James H. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 911, 921-922 [ 212 Cal. Rptr. 61 ].) DISPOSITION The orders under review are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new disposition hearing in conformity with the views expressed herein.

2015Its purpose is to maximize a child’s opportunity to develop into a stable, well-adjusted adult.” [Citation.]’ ” (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 ].) We review the juvenile court’s order for abuse of discretion. “[R]eversal is warranted only if there is no reasonable basis upon which the trial court could conclude that its decision advanced the best interests of the child.” (In re Marriage of Melville (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 601, 610 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 ] (Melville).) Here, at the time of the contested disposition hearing, the Agency had completed a portio

2015Its purpose is to maximize a child’s opportunity to develop into a stable, well-adjusted adult.” [Citation.]’ ” (In re William B. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1227 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 ].) We review the juvenile court’s order for abuse of discretion. “[R]eversal is warranted only if there is no reasonable basis upon which the trial court could conclude that its decision advanced the best interests of the child.” (In re Marriage of Melville (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 601, 610 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 ] (Melville).) Here, at the time of the contested disposition hearing, the Agency had completed a portio

2023The argument by Agency counsel during the contested disposition hearing seems to suggest that it does.13 But argument of counsel is not evidence (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413, fn. 11 ), and nothing else in the record before us explains 13 During the contested disposition hearing, Agency counsel explained that “[i]t is protocol for the Agency, under the child abuse treatment standards, to refer to child abuse group therapy in cases of severe neglect resulting in injury to a child.” Counsel further explained that “the subject matter of a child abuse group broaches all manners of abus

2023(Cesar V. [v. Superior Court], supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1035 .) This is because decisions concerning placement of the child do not affect the parent’s interest in reunification, where the parent is no longer able to reunify with the child.” (In re A.K., supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 499 ; see In re Isaiah S. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 428, 435-436 .) Here, the juvenile court denied reunification services to mother at the contested disposition hearing on April 21, 2021.

2022(See In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 420 (Greg F.) [dismissal “is appropriate under section 782 so long as the juvenile court, in its discretion, finds that the dismissal is required by the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor”].) In February 2020, the juvenile court exercised its discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 and dismissed the most recently filed robbery/grand theft petition in “the interest of justice” at the contested disposition hearing.

2013J.S. appealed and, on May 22, 2012, this court reversed the commitment to DJF, as required by the holding of In re C.H (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, 97-98 (C.H.).