In Re Aaron B.

California Court of Appeal Jun 19, 1996 No. A071634Published

Before: Haning

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an appellant who fails to appear at trial, maintain contact with counsel, or object to reports in the lower court waives the right to challenge the adequacy of those reports on appeal.

Issues

Whether the appellant waived the right to challenge the adequacy of the adoption assessment report by failing to object in the trial court.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant failed to make court appearances below, failed to keep in contact with his attorney, failed to object to the challenged reports below, and failed to provide the trial court with evidence supporting his position.”

46 Cal.App.4th 843 (1996) In re AARON B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

JAMES B., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. A071634. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five.

June 19, 1996. [844] COUNSEL

P. Cecilia Storr for Defendant and Appellant.

Tamara C. Falor, County Counsel, and Nancy B. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[Opinion certified for partial publication.[1]]

OPINION

HANING, J.

James "Terry" B. appeals a July 26, 1995, order terminating his parental rights to his sons Aaron, born September 23, 1987, and Dustin, born November 24, 1989. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[2] § 366.26.) He contends the court failed to consider the less detrimental alternatives of long-term foster care and guardianship, that there is insufficient evidence that the minors are adoptable, and that the adoption assessment report was inadequate. The mother's parental rights were also terminated, but she does not appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In October 1993 petitions were filed under section 300, subdivision (b) for failure to protect. In June 1995 this court denied appellant's writ petition [845] seeking review of the trial court's order at the 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing pursuant to section 366.26, after determining the court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. (James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 1014, 1016, 1021 [41 Cal. Rptr.2d 762].) The decision expressly barred appellant "from making further challenges to the order terminating reunification services and setting a hearing under section 366.26." (Id. at p. 1021.)

In Re Aaron B.

AI Brief

OPINION

HANING, J.

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief