In re R.D. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Nov 16, 2015 No. B262195MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the appellant's section 388 petition for modification because the appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or new evidence.

Issues

Did the juvenile court err in denying the appellant's section 388 petition for modification without an evidentiary hearing?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court found that Eric’s petition did not make a prima facie showing for modification. It denied his request for modification without a hearing.”

“The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petition without a hearing.”

Filed 11/16/15 In re R.D. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re R.D., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B262195 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J069709) (Ventura County) ORDER MODIFIYING OPINION VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN AND DENYING REHEARING SERVICES AGENCY, [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ERIC S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 22, 2015, be modified as follows: 1. On page 2, in the last sentence in the first paragraph, the words "in December" are deleted so the sentence reads: "After paternity tests, Troy D. waived presumed father status." 2. On page 2, on line 10 in the fifth paragraph, the word "anti-psychotic" is deleted so the sentence reads: "He consistently attended individual counseling and took medication as prescribed."

3. On page 3, in the last sentence of the first full paragraph, the word "arrested" is changed to "investigated" so that the sentence reads: "He was investigated in July for battery on a person he thought was following Penny." 4. On page 4, in line 4 in the paragraph at the top of the page, after the sentence ending "and should complete the course," insert the following two sentences: Other evidence showed he completed the course before the hearing. He received a participation score of "excellent." 5. On page 4, on line 8 in the second paragraph under DISCUSSION, after the sentence ending "new facts that would support modification," insert the following sentence: He said he had not seen Penny for more than three months.

There is no change in the judgment. Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

In re R.D. CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ERIC S.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

ERIC S.,

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

AI Brief