In Re Elizabeth G.

California Court of Appeal Nov 17, 1988 No. C003511Published

Before: Sparks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that once a permanency plan is adopted, subsequent review hearings are governed by Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3 rather than the detriment findings required by section 366.2, subdivision (e).

Issues

Whether the juvenile court was required to make a finding of detriment to the minor before approving a post-permanency planning placement.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to review prior appealable orders that were not timely challenged.
Whether the evidence supported the court's order for out-of-home placement under section 366.3.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Once the permanency plan with appropriate findings had been adopted the court was not required to make similar findings at every subsequent hearing.”

“At the conclusion of the hearing which is at issue on appeal the court found that Elizabeth continues to need the care and protection of the court and that there is a continued need for out-of-home placement.”

“That was an appropriate and sufficient finding under section 366.3.”

205 Cal.App.3d 1327 (1988) 253 Cal. Rptr. 161 In re ELIZABETH G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

PLUMAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

MARGARET G. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Docket No. C003511. Court of Appeals of California, Third District.

November 17, 1988. [1329] COUNSEL

Patricia Watkins and Nancy Marsh, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants.

Robert Shulman, County Counsel, and Janet A. Hilde, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SPARKS, J.

Margaret and Daniel G., the natural parents of the minor Elizabeth G., appeal from an order of the juvenile court after a permanency planning review hearing. The order directed that Elizabeth be placed in the home of her aunt and uncle in New Jersey. Margaret contends that the juvenile court failed to make the requisite finding that a return of Elizabeth to the custody of her parents would be detrimental and that in any event the department of social services failed to meet its burden of establishing that her return would create a substantial risk of detriment. Daniel makes a similar claim and argues that the court committed reversible error by violating the mandate of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.2, subdivision (e). Because we find these contentions to be unpersuasive, we shall affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In September, 1985, an amended petition was filed alleging that Elizabeth, then five years of age, was a dependent child within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a) and (d) (unless otherwise specified further statutory references are to that code).[1] The petition alleged that: (1) Daniel was unable to provide appropriate care of Elizabeth due to limited intelligence and past inability to adequately care for her; (2) Margaret was incarcerated for suspected violations of Penal Code sections 288 and 288a and an investigation revealed that Elizabeth had been present when her mother was sexually active with other minors and her sister; and (3) Elizabeth had played sexual games with other minors which an investigation indicated may have been instigated by Margaret.

In Re Elizabeth G.

AI Brief

OPINION

SPARKS, J.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief