legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re D.D. CA4/2
F.D. (Mother) is the mother of D.D., who was 12 years old on the date of the challenged orders. Mother challenges the court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders made on August 23, 2017, in which the court found Mother to be an offending parent and declined to place D.D. in her care. Specifically, Mother argues: (1) the jurisdictional finding that she failed to protect D.D. from Father is not supported by substantial evidence because Father had moved D.D. to another state six years prior, concealed D.D.’s whereabouts and prevented D.D. from contacting Mother for three to four years; and (2) because the court found Mother to be an offending parent, it did not make the required finding of detriment required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2, when considering placement with a nonoffending parent, and any such finding is not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed post, we reverse the jurisdictional finding and the dispositional order as to Mother.

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