Daniel P. v. Super. Ct.
Cheryl P. and Daniel P. (together the parents) seek review of orders terminating their reunification services regarding the dependency of their son, Nicholas P., and referring the case for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. They contend the court erred by not returning Nicholas to their custody. They argue they participated regularly and made substantive progress in reunification services and there was insufficient evidence to show returning Nicholas would create a substantial risk of detriment. They also assert the court erred by not extending services for another six months. Court deny the petitions.
Comments on Daniel P. v. Super. Ct.