In re A.S. CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Mar 14, 2023 No. B316735Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the termination of dependency jurisdiction, holding that the father failed to demonstrate that the conditions leading to the initial detention still existed or would recur, and that the need for future visitation enforcement does not justify continued dependency jurisdiction.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion or lack substantial evidence in terminating dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 364?
Does the potential need for court supervision of conjoint counseling justify the continuation of dependency jurisdiction?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The father’s concern about possible noncompliance does not constitute a reason to justify extension of the court’s dependency jurisdiction.”

“The father has raised no arguments and pointed to no evidence relevant to the standard applied by the juvenile court in terminating its dependency jurisdiction. His challenge fails.”

Filed 3/14/23 In re A.S. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.S, a Person Coming Under B316735 the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP03335 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

G.S.,

Respondent;

I.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stacy Wiese, Judge. Affirmed.

Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Adam Baumgarten, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services. Christine E. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Respondent G.S. ____________________ I.S. appeals the juvenile court’s termination of its dependency jurisdiction over his son A.S. We affirm. Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. A.S. is a child with high-functioning autism born in 2011. His parents shared custody of A.S. after their separation and later divorce. The Department became involved with the family after A.S. reported the father choked him and held him on the ground during a June 2020 visit when A.S. threw a tantrum because he did not want to try on pants with suspenders. The juvenile court detained A.S. from the father and later sustained an allegation of failure to protect, finding the father had engaged in inappropriate physical discipline, and ordered services. The father appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional orders. We affirmed the orders in In re A.S. (Nov. 4, 2021, B310778) [nonpub. opn.], p.

In re A.S. CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WILEY, J.

VIRAMONTES, J.

AI Brief