In re N.A. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Oct 7, 2014 No. B254885MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction over a child after placing her with her noncustodial father, as the court had valid concerns regarding the father's ability to protect the child from the mother's instability.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court was required to terminate jurisdiction upon placing the child with her noncustodial father.
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by retaining jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We reject father’s contention that the juvenile court was required to terminate jurisdiction, and affirm the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders.”

“The juvenile court has three options: (1) it can terminate its jurisdiction, (2) order the noncustodial parent assume custody subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and order a home visit within three months, or (3) order the parent assume custody subject to the supervision of the juvenile court.”

Filed 10/7/14 In re N.A. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re N.A., a Person Coming Under the B254885 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. DK01210)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ORDER MODIFYING OPINION FAMILY SERVICES, AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

T.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:* The opinion filed on September 18, 2014, is modified in the following manner: The following sentence is added after the last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 5: “None of these circumstances were present in In re A.G. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675, and that case therefore does not assist father.” Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in judgment.

* BIGELOW, P. J. FLIER, J. GRIMES, J.

Filed 9/18/14 In re N.A. CA2/8 (unmodified version) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

In re N.A. CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

FLIER, J.

BIGELOW, P. J.

GRIMES, J.

AI Brief