legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re H.C.
This opinion addresses two appeals that have been consolidated. The first appeal is brought by T.C. (Mother), who is the mother of H.C. and A.C. (collectively “the children”). The second appeal is brought by L.C. (Cousin), who is Mother’s cousin—the children’s second cousin. The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b)(1).)[1] Additionally, the juvenile court (1) suspended visitation between Cousin and the children, (2) ordered the children’s permanent plans to be adoption by their caregivers, and (3) denied Cousin’s request to place the children with Cousin (§ 388).
Cousin contends the juvenile court erred because (1) it failed to follow the statutory requirements concerning relative placement (§ 361.3), and (2) it was in the children’s best interests to be placed together, in order to preserve their sibling bond. Mother contends the juvenile court erred because it “did not adequately assess and evaluate the suitable and available relative placement with maternal cousin.” We affirm the judgment.

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