legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re E.M.
Appellant G.N. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s October 19, 2011, order terminating parental rights to her then nine-year-old daughter E.M. and selecting adoption as E.M.’s permanent plan. Mother claims that insufficient evidence supports the court’s determination that the parental benefit exception to the adoption preference did not apply, and that the court should have instead selected guardianship or long-term foster care as E.M.’s permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).)[1] We reject this claim and affirm the challenged order.

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