In Re Danielle M.

California Court of Appeal Nov 21, 1989 No. A042926Published

Before: King

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a parent's unemployment and lack of a separate residence are insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of detriment required to deny that parent custody of their children.

Issues

Whether a parent's unemployment and lack of a separate residence constitute sufficient grounds to deny them custody of their children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the only reasons Durrett was denied custody, nor would the record support such a denial.”

215 Cal.App.3d 1267 (1989) 266 Cal. Rptr. 352 In re DANIELLE M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

DURRETT M. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Docket No. A042926. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five.

November 21, 1989. [1268] COUNSEL

Patricia L. Watkins and Susan C. Gwinn for Defendants and Appellants.

Louise H. Renne, City Attorney, Loretta M. Giorgi and Kenneth T. Phillippi, Deputy City Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[Opinion certified for partial publication.[*]]

OPINION

KING, J.

We publish our opinion in this case to once again bring to the attention of the Legislature once again the need to change the process for appellate review of juvenile court determinations, especially in dependency proceedings. The present method of review by appeal fails to protect the rights of the parties fully and imposes an unnecessary additional workload on already overburdened Courts of Appeal and public legal offices representing the City and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services (Department) which filed the present dependency petition.

Marlette P. and Durrett M. separately appeal from an order declaring their two daughters dependent children and placing them in the custody of their paternal grandmother.

[1269] On February 26, 1988, based on several relative referrals and two home visits by a social worker, the Department filed a petition alleging that Danielle and Kiana M., then aged one and four, came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a).[1] After a contested detention hearing on March 23, the children were placed with their father, Durrett M., in the home of his mother, Gloria Johnson. On May 19, 1988, after a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing, the trial court declared Danielle and Kiana to be dependents of the court and placed them in the custody of their paternal grandmother. The trial court denied the father's petition for rehearing.

In Re Danielle M.

AI Brief

OPINION

KING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

NOTES

AI Brief