In re O.H.
In 2007, appellant J.H.'s four children were placed in protective custody and a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed.[1] Appellant had supervised weekly visits with her oldest child, O.H., and her two youngest children. Appellant's second-born child, R.H., refused to visit her. Reunification services were terminated in June 2009. In September 2009, the court selected adoption as the permanent plan for the two youngest children, scheduled a section 366.26 hearing and ordered monthly visits with appellant. At a November 2, 2009, hearing, the court selected long-term foster care as the permanent plan for O.H. and R.H., scheduled a section 366.26 hearing and ordered monthly visits between appellant and O.H. Appellant contested the reduction in visits with the three children. This complaint was rejected after hearing on December 4, 2009.
Appellant argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by reducing the frequency of her visits with O.H. Court are not persuaded and will affirm.
Comments on In re O.H.