In Re Amelia S.

California Court of Appeal Apr 30, 1991 No. G009929Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in terminating parental rights because the social services agency failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the minors were likely to be adopted, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in terminating parental rights without sufficient evidence of the minors' adoptability.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the SSA's failure to present adequate evidence of adoptability, the court should not have terminated his parental rights.”

“In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to satisfy the statute, it is error to leave a child without any parent.”

229 Cal.App.3d 1060 (1991) 280 Cal. Rptr. 503 In re AMELIA S. et al., Minors.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Petitioner and Respondent,

ANGEL R., Objector and Appellant.

Docket No. G009929. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

April 30, 1991. [1061] COUNSEL

Steven D. Schatz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel, and Christopher J. Miller, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

Harold LaFlamme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

Angel R. appeals the trial court's orders terminating his parental rights to his 10 minor children. He contends there was no evidence to support the court's finding the minors were adoptable; thus, termination of his parental rights was premature. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subds. (c)(1) & (c)(2).)[1] We agree and reverse accordingly.

[1062] I.

Nine of appellant's ten children, ranging in age from one to nine years, were taken into protective custody on April 17, 1989, while appellant and his wife were panhandling in an Anaheim parking lot. The children were filthy, improperly clothed, and had not eaten that day. Several of them had never attended school. The parents were arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance and for child neglect, and were incarcerated in Anaheim city jail.

Appellant had an extensive criminal background dating back to 1975. He had been arrested for, among other things, being under the influence of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, transporting and selling a controlled substance, burglary, receiving stolen property, assault, battery, armed robbery, and statutory rape. Also on file were a number of reports of child abuse in Orange County, San Joaquin County and Santa Cruz County.

In Re Amelia S.

AI Brief

OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief