In Re Elaine E.

California Court of Appeal Jun 4, 1990 No. H006027Published

Before: Agliano

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a parent seeking to modify an existing visitation order during a dependency review hearing must comply with the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 by demonstrating changed circumstances. The court further held that a section 364 review hearing is limited to determining whether continued juvenile court supervision is necessary, not for litigating visitation modifications.

Issues

Whether a parent is entitled to present evidence regarding visitation at a section 364 review hearing without a showing of changed circumstances.
Whether a social worker's recommendation for unsupervised visitation constitutes a change of circumstance under section 388.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By its very terms section 364 limits the court's inquiry to whether the conditions for continuing supervision exist.”

“Where, as here, the noncustodial parent seeks modification of an existing order, he must comply with the specific requirements of section 388.”

“We do not believe the probation department recommendation, standing alone, represented a change in factual circumstances as contemplated by section 388.”

221 Cal.App.3d 809 (1990) 270 Cal. Rptr. 489 In re ELAINE E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

RICHARD R. O'NEIL, as Director, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

EMERY E., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. H006027. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.

June 4, 1990. [811] COUNSEL

Green & Evans and Terry Green for Defendant and Appellant.

Leo Himmelsbach, District Attorney, Robert J. Masterson, Deputy District Attorney, Steven M. Woodside, County Counsel, and L. Michael Clark, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

[812] OPINION

AGLIANO, P.J.

Introduction

Emery E. appeals from a juvenile court order dismissing dependency petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300)[1] which had been filed on behalf of his three natural children (minors) after he had sexually molested his adopted daughter.[2] Appellant argues the trial court erred prior to terminating the proceedings when it refused to allow him to present evidence in support of his request for unsupervised visitation. As this contention lacks merit we will affirm.

Facts and Proceedings

Shortly after the petitions were filed in March 1985 the minors were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court. Their mother was given physical custody and appellant was prohibited from contacting the minors except with probation department supervision. Periodic review hearings pursuant to section 364 were held in the dependency actions and the juvenile court orders remained in effect without substantial change from April 1985 through July 1987, when the court permitted appellant to have weekly supervised visits with the minors. This visitation schedule remained in effect until the time the petitions were dismissed in favor of transfer to family court.

In Re Elaine E.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief