Court of appeals’ orders terminating a father’s parental rights to his children and summarily denying his petition for modification under Welfare and Inst. Code section 388 is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his request for an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition for modification as he did not state he was currently unable to provide the children a stable, safe, permanent placement; 2) it did not violate the father’s due process rights when it terminated his parental rights without making an initial finding that his acts or omissions brought his children within any of the descriptions set forth in section 300; 3) a biological father has no right to an express finding of unfitness or detriment before the court may terminate his parental rights; and 4) as required under section 366.26(c)(1), the court made an adequate, previous detriment finding as to the father.
Read In re A.S., No. D054951 [HTML]
Read In re A.S., No. D054951 [PDF]
Appellate Information
Filed December 17, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Huffman
CounselFor Appellant: Patti L. Dikes
For Appellee: John J. Sansone, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
