In Re Francecisco

California Court of Appeal Mar 29, 1971 No. 37476Published

Before: Lillie

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court retains continuing jurisdiction over a dependent child until it determines that the minor's best interests no longer require court supervision, regardless of whether a parent is currently capable of exercising parental control. At a status renewal hearing, the burden of proof lies with the party seeking to terminate jurisdiction to show that such supervision is no longer necessary.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court loses jurisdiction over a dependent child if a natural parent is capable of exercising effective parental care and control.
Whether the appellant met the burden of proof to terminate the juvenile court's jurisdiction at a status renewal hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“continuing jurisdiction over the minor is not dependent solely on whether a parent is capable of exercising proper and effective parental control over him but on whether the best interest of the child is served by freeing him from further supervision.”

“appellant may not at a dependency status renewal hearing relitigate the original issue of jurisdiction”

16 Cal.App.3d 310 (1971) 94 Cal. Rptr. 186 In re TITO FRANCECISCO, a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALBERTA ESTES, Plaintiff and Appellant,

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant and Respondent.

Docket No. 37476. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One.

March 29, 1971. [312] COUNSEL

Ames & Lane and Carl J. Lane for Plaintiff and Appellant.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, and Harold S. Vites, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

LILLIE, J.

On April 6, 1964, the minor was adjudged a dependent child of the court under section 600, subdivisions (a) and (b), Welfare and Institutions Code, and placed in a foster home until the cause was dismissed on March 1, 1965, at which time he was returned to his mother, [313] appellant. On June 7, 1967, the minor was again declared a dependent child under section 600, subdivision (a), and thereafter suitably placed through the Department of Public Social Services and under its supervision with his father. Thereafter in 1968 the minor's dependency status was renewed and all visitation rights of appellant were canceled; in 1969 renewal of dependency status was again effected and on August 26, 1969, limited visitation rights were restored to appellant and the matter continued to June 9, 1970. On June 9, the cause again came before the court for review and renewal of dependency status. After taking testimony and considering the report of the social worker, the judge ordered that the minor remain under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a dependent child in the home of the father under supervision of the Department of Public Social Services and visitation by appellant be controlled, and left the matter open for modification of the order if conditions change. She appeals from the order claiming, as in the court below, that the juvenile court could not retain jurisdiction over the minor pursuant to section 600, subdivision (a), because the evidence establishes that at least one, if not both natural parents are capable of exercising effective parental care and control over him.

In Re Francecisco

AI Brief

OPINION

LILLIE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief