In re D.T
In re D.T
02:05:2006
In re D.T
Filed 2/3/06 In re D.T. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re D.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B184474
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK51557)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRUCE T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Steven Berman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Arezoo Pichvai, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________________________
Bruce T. (the father) appeals from the order terminating his parental rights as to his now four-year-old son, D.T. (born July 2001). Contrary to the father's contentions, (1) he was properly informed of the nature of the March 2, 2005, selection and implementation hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26),[1] (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his request for a continuance of the hearing, and (3) substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's refusal to apply the benefit exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) to preclude termination of parental rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On March 4, 2003, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition (§ 300, subds. (a) & (b)) on behalf of D.T. The petition alleged that (1) the father physically abused D.T. by striking him about the mouth causing the mouth to bleed, (2) the father and the mother (Shieka L.) have a history of domestic violence, and (3) the father, who had primary physical custody of D.T., threatened the mother with bodily harm if she attempted to take the child for visits. At the March 4 hearing, the court ordered D.T. detained in foster care, ordered the parents to participate in parenting classes and domestic violence counseling, and granted the parents monitored visits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court admonished the parents to return back to court on April 1 for the pretrial resolution conference, and noted â€
02:05:2006
Filed 2/3/06 In re D.T. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re D.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B184474
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK51557)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRUCE T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Steven Berman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Arezoo Pichvai, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________________________
Bruce T. (the father) appeals from the order terminating his parental rights as to his now four-year-old son, D.T. (born July 2001). Contrary to the father's contentions, (1) he was properly informed of the nature of the March 2, 2005, selection and implementation hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26),[1] (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his request for a continuance of the hearing, and (3) substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's refusal to apply the benefit exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) to preclude termination of parental rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On March 4, 2003, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a dependency petition (§ 300, subds. (a) & (b)) on behalf of D.T. The petition alleged that (1) the father physically abused D.T. by striking him about the mouth causing the mouth to bleed, (2) the father and the mother (Shieka L.) have a history of domestic violence, and (3) the father, who had primary physical custody of D.T., threatened the mother with bodily harm if she attempted to take the child for visits. At the March 4 hearing, the court ordered D.T. detained in foster care, ordered the parents to participate in parenting classes and domestic violence counseling, and granted the parents monitored visits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court admonished the parents to return back to court on April 1 for the pretrial resolution conference, and noted â€
| Description | A civil law decision on parental rights. |
| Rating |
