In re D.L.
In these consolidated appeals, Father challenges a decision declaring his son, D.L., a dependent of the juvenile court and restricting Father to supervised visits. Because D.L. did not reside with Father when the events giving rise to these proceedings occurred, Father says the juvenile court erred when it failed to consider placing D.L. with him as required by Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 361.2. Father also challenges the court's decision to afford him twice monthly supervised visits. Court conclude that the juvenile court made the finding required by section 361.2 when it declared D.L. a dependent of the juvenile court. Court also conclude the court acted appropriately out of concern for D.L.'s well-being and did not abuse its discretion when it restricted Father to supervised visits. Thus, Court affirm.
Comments on In re D.L.