jurisdiction and disposition hearing in California

2024(See Llanos v. Goord (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 555 F.Supp.2d 454, 458, fn. 1 [“BAC and mg/dl are alternative measures of the alcohol in a sample of blood.

2024(See Llanos v. Goord (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 555 F.Supp.2d 454, 458, fn. 1 [“BAC and mg/dl are alternative measures of the alcohol in a sample of blood.

2014“The first appealable order in a dependency case is the dispositional order. . . . [A] challenge to the jurisdictional findings must be raised in an appeal from the dispositional order.” (In re T.W. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 723, 729 ; In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 112 [propriety of jurisdictional findings is reviewable on appeal from the judgment following disposition].) If Sean wished to challenge the court’s jurisdictional ruling, he was required to do so in an appeal from that dispositional order.

2014The court granted mother monitored visitation with James every other weekend, plus telephonic contact of two to three times per week, and with Paige once a month, plus telephonic contact of two to three times per week. 4 Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. (§ 395, subd. (a)(1); see In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 112 [jurisdictional findings reviewable on appeal from the judgment following disposition].) DISCUSSION Mother contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the jurisdictional findings because, at the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, which occurr

1991He also argues this court should apply Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 835 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581-582 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ] to determine that his waiver of counsel at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in November 1988 was ineffective, and that his lack of counsel for the ensuing 12 months was inherently prejudicial.

1991He also argues this court should apply Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 835 [ 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 581-582 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ] to determine that his waiver of counsel at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in November 1988 was ineffective, and that his lack of counsel for the ensuing 12 months was inherently prejudicial.

2020Right to notice and right to appear “Due process requires that a parent is entitled to notice that is reasonably calculated to apprise him or her of the dependency proceedings and afford him or her an opportunity to object. [Citation.] The child welfare agency must act with diligence to locate a missing parent. [Citation.] Reasonable diligence denotes a thorough, systematic investigation and an inquiry conducted in good faith.” (In re Justice P., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 188 .) When a parent is not present at the detention hearing, the notice of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing mus

2020Instead, citing a 2004 Court of Appeal case (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181 (Justice P.)), the court determined Father was not entitled to a new jurisdiction and disposition hearing in which he could participate solely because the court believed “there is not a sufficient bond and it is certainly not in this child’s best interest.” II In this court, the Department does not defend the inadequate effort it made to notify Father of the proceedings before the court went forward with a jurisdiction and disposition hearing in his absence.

2007Section 291 provides, that with respect to jurisdiction and disposition hearings, “(d) The notice shall include all of the following: [f] . . . [1] (2) The nature of the hearing.” (See also In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 751 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 ] [notice of hearing “ ‘on the petition’ ’’ is insufficient notice of a pretrial resolution conference or jurisdiction hearing because all pretrial, jurisdictional and disposition hearings are “ ‘on the petition’ ”].) Because J.H. was detained and Father was not present at the detention hearing, the notice of the jurisdiction and disposit

2007Section 291 provides, that with respect to jurisdiction and disposition hearings, “(d) The notice shall include all of the following: [f] . . . [1] (2) The nature of the hearing.” (See also In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 751 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 ] [notice of hearing “ ‘on the petition’ ’’ is insufficient notice of a pretrial resolution conference or jurisdiction hearing because all pretrial, jurisdictional and disposition hearings are “ ‘on the petition’ ”].) Because J.H. was detained and Father was not present at the detention hearing, the notice of the jurisdiction and disposit

2024(See M.D., at pp. 857-858 [“A fact finder could reasonably conclude, based on the evidence of [the father’s] habitual parenting practices, coupled with his ongoing denial and lack of insight, that it was highly probable returning [the child] to his care put her at risk of physical danger.”]; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“In light of [the] mother’s failure to recognize the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there was no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should the minor remain in her home.”]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“[o]ne cannot c

2022Mother asserts that the police raid at the home where L.G. resided, “was, for the intent of removal by the Department and the juvenile court, nine months old.” However, as other courts have stated, “[o]ne cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge.” (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 .) Although mother expressed willingness to leave maternal grandmother’s home before it was ordered by the court as a condition of L.G.’s release and later disclaimed any desire to return there, the evidence in the record supports that mother failed to acknowledge the risks posed to L.G. by t

2023Father made his first appearance in July 2022, he was appointed counsel, filed a request to change the court’s orders, participated in an evidentiary hearing and never objected on the basis of inadequate notice. “[A] reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court. [Citation.] The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, fn. omitted.) “A parent’s failure to raise an issue in t

2015(In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 605 .) Appellant “implies the court deprived him of the opportunity to establish himself as a presumed father . . . by denying his counsel’s request for a continuance.” (In re Elijah V., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 585.) When a father is aware of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, yet chooses not to testify at it, the court does not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance on the issue of presumed fatherhood.

2023“A party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221 .) At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, father did not ask the juvenile court to consider 1 We agree with the parties that father was ineligible for reunification services, because Willa was not placed in out-of-home care or with a previously noncustodial parent. (§ 16507, subd. (b).) It was therefore unnecessary and arguably erroneous for the court to bypass father under subdivision (b)(10) of sec

2023(See In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221 [“A party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court.”].) 9 we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.’ ” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 (R.T.).) Here, the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over A.R. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

2022(See In re Al.J. (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 652 , 669 [defective notice deprived father of right to appear and right to counsel where “father unambiguously requested to be present at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, a request that can reasonably be interpreted as including a request for appointment of counsel”]; In re J.P. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 789, 794 [juvenile court erroneously denied parent’s request to reappoint counsel].) Mother does not argue that she was deprived of an opportunity to be present at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing because of the defective notice, nor does sh

2020(In re J.P., supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at pp. 797–801.) We examine what rights would have been 31 available to father if the court had appointed an attorney before proceeding with the jurisdiction and disposition hearing.

2020(Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 314 .) When a parent has no notice of a jurisdiction and disposition hearing that results in an order for the state to assume jurisdiction over the parent’s child, and when the parent later complains about that lack of notice, the juvenile court should be required to redo the hearing because assessing prejudice will ordinarily be too difficult.

2014Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 317 [ 94 L.Ed. 865 , 875].) DESS was not required to send notice of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing to the Chico address.

2025“A judgment in a proceeding under Section 300 may be appealed in the same manner as any final judgment . . . .” (§ 395, italics added; Javier G., supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1999 [in dependency proceedings, the disposition order is the judgment].) “A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ.

2024(See M.M., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 720 [mother’s report that father pushed her to the ground while she was pregnant supported jurisdictional finding under § 300, subd. (a)].) Although these incidents occurred more than two years before the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, J.G. faced a current risk of harm because of Jason’s issues with violence.

2024But on this record, in the absence of any relevance of Michael’s testimony, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the possibility of some harm to Michael from testifying, even in chambers, outweighed “the material effect of the child’s testimony on the relevant issues.” (Daniela G., at p. 1091; see Jennifer J., supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088 .) 17 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s May 11, 2022 order denying Father’s request for Michael to testify at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the May 24 jurisdiction findings and disposition order, and the June 1 juvenile cust

2024(See M.D., at pp. 857-858 [“A fact finder could reasonably conclude, based on the evidence of [the father’s] habitual parenting practices, coupled with his ongoing denial and lack of insight, that it was highly probable returning [the child] to his care put her at risk of physical danger.”]; In re A.F. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 283, 293 [“In light of [the] mother’s failure to recognize the risks to which she was exposing the minor, there was no reason to believe the conditions would not persist should the minor remain in her home.”]; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“[o]ne cannot c

2023Father made his first appearance in July 2022, he was appointed counsel, filed a request to change the court’s orders, participated in an evidentiary hearing and never objected on the basis of inadequate notice. “[A] reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court. [Citation.] The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293, fn. omitted.) “A parent’s failure to raise an issue in t