contested jurisdiction hearing in California

2026(S.H., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp. 312–313.) At the hearing, the court sustained allegations that the mother failed to protect her children from physical and sexual abuse, and family reunification services were ordered for mother.

2025(S.H., supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at pp. 312-313.) At the hearing, the court sustained allegations that the mother failed to protect her children from physical and sexual abuse, and family reunification services were ordered for mother.

2026(In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855 , 859–860; rule 5.780(c) [“Except as otherwise provided by law, the court must not read or consider any portion of a probation report relating to the contested petition before or during a contested jurisdiction hearing.”].) However, minor forfeited and waived this claim of error.

2025Proof beyond a reasonable doubt supported by evidence, legally admissible in the trial of criminal cases, must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by Section 602.’ ” (In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268, 271 .) This portion of section 701 remains unchanged. (§ 701.) Additionally, rule 5.780(c), enacted after Gladys R., supra, 1 Cal.3d 855 was decided states: “Except as provided by law, the court must not read or consider any portion of a probation report relating to the contested petition before or during a contested jurisdiction hearing.” S.R. contends th

2018(See In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763 , 769, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 170 .) These provisions provide for two possible outcomes when the court adjudicates a dependency petition.

2018(See In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763 , 769, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 170 .) These provisions provide for two possible outcomes when the court adjudicates a dependency petition.

2018(See § 325; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.520(a).) " ' " ' "[A] juvenile court is vested with jurisdiction to make only those limited determinations authorized by the legislative grant of those special powers." ' " ' " ( In re David B. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 633 , 645, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 108 .) The procedure the juvenile court must follow when adjudicating a dependency petition at a contested jurisdiction hearing is set forth in sections 356 and 358, as well as rule 5.684 of the California Rules of Court.

2018(See § 325; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.520(a).) " ' " ' "[A] juvenile court is vested with jurisdiction to make only those limited determinations authorized by the legislative grant of those special powers." ' " ' " ( In re David B. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 633 , 645, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 108 .) The procedure the juvenile court must follow when adjudicating a dependency petition at a contested jurisdiction hearing is set forth in sections 356 and 358, as well as rule 5.684 of the California Rules of Court.

2026Code, § 701.) Rule 5.780(c) 7 further provides that the juvenile “court must not read or consider any portion of a probation report relating to the contested petition before or during a contested jurisdiction hearing.” (Italics added.) The juvenile court’s erroneous consideration of a probation report before determining jurisdiction is reviewed for harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 .

2025Proof beyond a reasonable doubt supported by evidence, legally admissible in the trial of criminal cases, must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by Section 602.’ ” (In re James H. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 268, 271 .) This portion of section 701 remains unchanged. (§ 701.) Additionally, rule 5.780(c), enacted after Gladys R., supra, 1 Cal.3d 855 was decided states: “Except as provided by law, the court must not read or consider any portion of a probation report relating to the contested petition before or during a contested jurisdiction hearing.” S.R. contends th

2021While mother’s contention is raised in this appeal from her third petition for modification, mother is, in 7 substance, challenging the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders, which have long since become final and are not subject to attack in this appeal.4 In a juvenile dependency proceeding, the disposition order is the judgment for purposes of appeal. (§ 395; In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1149-1150 .) The jurisdiction finding is not separately appealable but may be reviewed on an appeal from the disposition order.

2018(People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 ; see Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1 , 11–15 [retrial permitted for procedural error where evidentiary insufficiency not implicated].) The flaw in the People’s argument for a remand on the value of the stolen vehicle is that the law changed nearly two years before D.N. committed her offenses, and over two years from the date of the contested jurisdiction hearing.

2015Even under our deferential standard of review, this evidence does not establish, as the Department alleged in its petition, that Frank “continue[d] to reside in the home of the mother,” nor does it support a reasonable inference that mother’s conduct at the time of the jurisdiction hearing placed Makayla at a present substantial risk of serious physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b); David M., supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 829 .) We understand the trial court’s concern over mother’s early reluctance to acknowledge the severity of Frank’s misconduct and take appropriate action to protect Makayla in th

2015Moreover, “[i]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the court ‘knows and applies the correct statutory and case law.’” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 361 ; see Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 741 [“‘[i]t is a basic presumption indulged in by reviewing courts that the trial court is presumed to have known and applied the correct statutory and case law in the exercise of its official duties’”].) No such evidence exists.

2015The juvenile court held a contested jurisdiction hearing in which it admitted numerous reports and psychological evaluations of the father prepared during his civil commitment and following his release and determined he had rebutted the presumption and the Department had not proved he was a current risk to his children.” ( 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 618 .) Quentin H. noted that the discussion of the section 355.1 presumption in Los Angeles County was “somewhat contradictory.” ( 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 619 .) At one point in its opinion, the Los Angeles County court stated that the father had failed t

2015The juvenile court held a contested jurisdiction hearing in which it admitted numerous reports and psychological evaluations of the father prepared during his civil commitment and following his release and determined he had rebutted the presumption and the Department had not proved he was a current risk to his children.” ( 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 618 .) Quentin H. noted that the discussion of the section 355.1 presumption in Los Angeles County was “somewhat contradictory.” ( 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 619 .) At one point in its opinion, the Los Angeles County court stated that the father had failed t

2014(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 .) In September 2013, the Orange County District Attorney filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging the minor committed two misdemeanors: vandalism causing damage less than $400 (Penal Code, § 594 subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)) and possession of graffiti tools (Penal Code, § 594.2, subd. (a).) A contested jurisdiction hearing was held.

2011(In re A.I., supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1435 .) By contrast, in In re A.I., “DEJ was requested before the contested jurisdiction hearing was completed and before the expenditure of resources beyond those that were necessary for a pretrial suppression motion.” (Ibid.) 5 We agree with the court in In re A.I. that a minor is not required to forego the right to a suppression hearing in order to accept DEJ.