conclusion of the disposition hearing in California

2024(In re Destiny D. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 197, 211 .) Rather, “it will be an unusual case when protections imposed at disposition will be sufficient to permit the conclusion that termination is appropriate.

2021Although mother argues in her opening brief “there was no evidence on December 3, 2020, to support the court’s finding as to 7 Mother argues that “nothing in [rule 5.695 of the California Rules of Court, the rule that governs orders made at a disposition hearing,] indicates a court may find a child a dependent, place the child with parents absent supervision, and immediately terminate jurisdiction.” Although the Destiny D. court acknowledged that rule 5.695 does not address this issue, the Court of Appeal nonetheless held that a juvenile court has the “statutory authority . . . to terminate ju

2017In addition to its reliance on the juvenile court's inherent authority, the In re A.J. court explicitly recognized the juvenile court's broad statutory authority under section 245.5 to direct any and all orders to the parent or parents of a child that the court deems necessary and proper to further the best interest of the child. ( In re A.J., supra , 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 536-537, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 851 [" ' "[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance with this discretion" ' "].

2017(In re A.J., supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 536-537 [“‘“[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child’s interest and to fashion a dispositional order in accordance with this discretion”’”].) As discussed, that breadth of statutory authority necessarily includes the discretion to terminate jurisdiction at the conclusion of the disposition hearing in an appropriate case when child welfare services and continued court supervision are no longer necessary to protect the child. 2.

2016(People v. Cochran (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 8, 13 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 248, fn. 12 .) Guardian writes, for example: “At the time of the conclusion of the Disposition hearing there was no substantial danger to the child’s physical or emotional well-being. [¶] First, [D.C.], [Guardian’s] adopted son had already moved out of the guardian’s house. . . .

2016On appeal, Elijah argues that the electronics search condition is unreasonable under Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d 481 , and is unconstitutionally overbroad.

2016On appeal, Elijah argues that the electronics search condition is unreasonable under Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d 481 , and is unconstitutionally overbroad.

2005Joshua argues the juvenile court erred in relying on In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th 68 because this decision was impliedly overruled by the California Supreme Court in the subsequent cases of People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 , 3 P.3d 311 ] and People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 , 73 P.3d 496 ]. 4 In People v. Sanders, supra, 31 Cal.4th 318 , the police searched the residence of two persons, one of whom was on parole and subject to a search condition of which the police were unaware at the time of the search.

2005Joshua argues the juvenile court erred in relying on In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th 68 because this decision was impliedly overruled by the California Supreme Court in the subsequent cases of People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 , 3 P.3d 311 ] and People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 , 73 P.3d 496 ]. 4 In People v. Sanders, supra, 31 Cal.4th 318 , the police searched the residence of two persons, one of whom was on parole and subject to a search condition of which the police were unaware at the time of the search.

2005Joshua argues the juvenile court erred in relying on In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th 68 because this decision was impliedly overruled by the California Supreme Court in the subsequent cases of People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 , 3 P.3d 311 ] and People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 , 73 P.3d 496 ]. 4 In People v. Sanders, supra, 31 Cal.4th 318 , the police searched the residence of two persons, one of whom was on parole and subject to a search condition of which the police were unaware at the time of the search.

2005Joshua argues the juvenile court erred in relying on In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th 68 because this decision was impliedly overruled by the California Supreme Court in the subsequent cases of People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 , 3 P.3d 311 ] and People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 , 73 P.3d 496 ]. 4 In People v. Sanders, supra, 31 Cal.4th 318 , the police searched the residence of two persons, one of whom was on parole and subject to a search condition of which the police were unaware at the time of the search.

2005Joshua argues the juvenile court erred in relying on In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th 68 because this decision was impliedly overruled by the California Supreme Court in the subsequent cases of People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 , 3 P.3d 311 ] and People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 , 73 P.3d 496 ]. 4 In People v. Sanders, supra, 31 Cal.4th 318 , the police searched the residence of two persons, one of whom was on parole and subject to a search condition of which the police were unaware at the time of the search.