legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Daniel P.
Erica P. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300, subdivision (b) and 361, subdivision (c)(1).[1] She raises three arguments on appeal: (1) Mother claims that the juvenile court erred when it did not provide her advisements of her rights when she submitted at the adjudication hearing; she contends that she would have pursued her right to a contested hearing had she understood her rights and that there is a reasonable probability that a more favorable outcome would have resulted. (2) She contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings that the children, Daniel P., Jr. (Daniel, born Feb. 2000), Jordan P. (Jordan, born Apr. 2003), Jaiden P. (Jaiden, born Jan. 2008), Tristan P. (Tristan, born June 2006), and Alex P. (Alex, born Sept. 2008), were at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of the alleged domestic violence between mother and Daniel P., Sr. (father). (3) Mother asserts that the evidence was insufficient to justify removal of the children from her care.
We conclude that mother's arguments are unavailing. Accordingly, we affirm.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale