legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re S.R.
Father appeals from juvenile court jurisdiction and disposition orders, sustaining jurisdiction over his daughter, S.R. (born in 2004), and placing her with maternal grandparents. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).)[1] Father contends there was insufficient evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings, and the court erred in not placing S.R. with him, since he was a nonoffending, noncustodial parent. In addition, father asserts the visitation orders were deficient and S.R.’s attorney had a conflict of interest in representing S.R. and her older siblings.[2]
We conclude there was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders. We agree the visitation orders are improper because they do not specify the frequency or duration of S.R.’s visitation with father. Therefore, on remand, the juvenile court is directed to modify the visitation order on September 29, 2011, by specifying the frequency and duration of father’s visitation with S.R. We reject father’s other contentions and affirm the jurisdiction and disposition orders.

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