In Re AE

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 2008 No. B206270Published

Before: Flier

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in ordering a parent to participate in counseling and parent education due to his concerning attitude toward child abuse, and further held that the parent forfeited his challenge by failing to object in the trial court.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering a parent to participate in counseling and parent education.
Whether the parent's failure to object to the court's order in the trial court precludes appellate review.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court has broad discretion to determine what would best serve and protect the child's interests and to fashion a dispositional order accordingly.”

“The lack of an objection forfeited the point that father is raising on appeal.”

“The reason for the order was that father displayed an attitude and approach to corporal punishment of small children that justifiably concerned the trial court.”

168 Cal.App.4th 1 (2008) In re A.E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

D.E., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B206270. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight.

November 5, 2008. [2] Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[3] OPINION

FLIER, J.

In October 2007, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of then six-year-old A.E. and three-year-old H.E. The father, D.E., and the mother, who is not a party to this appeal, were in the process of divorcing after an eight-year marriage. The parents shared legal custody of the children; mother had primary physical custody and father had visitation rights. DCFS's petition was sparked by A.E.'s complaint to father that mother struck H.E. with a spatula hard enough to leave a black bruise, a matter that mother admitted. Father, in turn, reported this to the police in a 911 call.

On February 20, 2008, the court entered several orders, only one of which is the subject of this appeal. That is an order directing both parents to participate in DCFS-approved "programs of parent education [and] individual counseling addressing all issues including anger management." Father appeals from the order directing him to participate in parent education classes and counseling, claiming that this order violates his right to due process. We reject father's contention and affirm the order.

In Re AE

AI Brief

FLIER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTS

DISCUSSION

AI Brief