.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=454
CALIFORNIA: In re: B. Del C.S.B.
04.09.2009 | Child Protection
International custody issue
.
Issues from '09 child protection cases
Moderators: family_man, LindaJM
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=407
ALABAMA: B.V. and D.V. v. Macon County Department of Human Resources
02.20.2009 | Child Protection / Foster Care
foster parents’ failure to intervene in the child’s dependency proceedings ... lacked standing to appeal the custody judgment
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=407
ALABAMA: B.V. and D.V. v. Macon County Department of Human Resources
02.20.2009 | Child Protection / Foster Care
foster parents’ failure to intervene in the child’s dependency proceedings ... lacked standing to appeal the custody judgment
.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=408
OREGON: In the Matter of W.L.P.
02.20.2009 | Child Protection / Adjudication
exclusionary rule barring illegally obtained evidence from particular court proceedings does not apply to a parent’s motion to suppress evidence in a juvenile dependency proceeding involving that parent’s child.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S055687.htm
The juvenile court denied the motion because it concluded that the exclusionary rule does not apply in juvenile dependency proceedings.
...
The issue in this case is whether the rule that this court has applied to motions to suppress by defendants in criminal cases also should be applied to a motion to suppress by a parent in a juvenile dependency proceeding.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=408
OREGON: In the Matter of W.L.P.
02.20.2009 | Child Protection / Adjudication
exclusionary rule barring illegally obtained evidence from particular court proceedings does not apply to a parent’s motion to suppress evidence in a juvenile dependency proceeding involving that parent’s child.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S055687.htm
The juvenile court denied the motion because it concluded that the exclusionary rule does not apply in juvenile dependency proceedings.
...
The issue in this case is whether the rule that this court has applied to motions to suppress by defendants in criminal cases also should be applied to a motion to suppress by a parent in a juvenile dependency proceeding.
.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=391
CALIFORNIA: In re A.R.
02.12.2009 | Child Protection
The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, District One, reversed and remanded the Superior Court of San Diego County’s judgment refusing to grant appellant father’s request to stay dependency proceedings pursuant to the Service-members Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Noting that SCRA requirements override ASFA time constraints, the court found that the lower court erred when it did not stay the dependency proceedings for 90 days as required by the SCRA, which provides temporary suspension of court proceedings that might adversely affect the rights of an active military service member. Here, because the biological father met the conditions of SCRA as he was on active duty and unable to take leave from his deployment, the stay was mandatory.
Cite: No. D053125, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 81 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2009)
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=391
CALIFORNIA: In re A.R.
02.12.2009 | Child Protection
The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, District One, reversed and remanded the Superior Court of San Diego County’s judgment refusing to grant appellant father’s request to stay dependency proceedings pursuant to the Service-members Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Noting that SCRA requirements override ASFA time constraints, the court found that the lower court erred when it did not stay the dependency proceedings for 90 days as required by the SCRA, which provides temporary suspension of court proceedings that might adversely affect the rights of an active military service member. Here, because the biological father met the conditions of SCRA as he was on active duty and unable to take leave from his deployment, the stay was mandatory.
Cite: No. D053125, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 81 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2009)
.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=387
NORTH CAROLINA: In re N.B., et al.
01.29.2009 | Child Protection / Foster Care
lack of sufficient evidence to terminate parental rights on the basis of neglect and dependency.
lack of oral evidence or an independent determination
Social Services failed to satisfy the burden of proof for termination proceedings.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/c ... 1082-1.htm
Respondent-mother specifically notes that the trial court “failed to make an independent determination that neglect existed at the time of the termination of parental rights hearing” and that “competent evidence” was lacking as to a determination of dependency.
...
In In re A.M., this Court reversed and remanded... because
the trial court entered an order based solely on the written reports of DSS and the guardian ad litem, prior court orders, and oral arguments by the attorneys involved in the case. DSS did not present any witnesses for testimony, and the trial court did not examine any witnesses. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court failed to hold a proper, independent termination hearing. Consideration of written reports, prior court orders, and the attorney's oral arguments was proper; however, in addition the trial court needed some oral testimony.
...
The only difference between the case before us and In Re A.M. is that here the trial court did hear testimony from one witness, respondent-mother....
Respondent-mother's direct testimony refuted petitioner's allegations, and petitioner did not cross-examine her...
no oral testimony was provided on behalf of DSS, and the testimony presented by respondent-mother did not provide sufficient evidence to support the termination of parental rights determination...
trial courts maycontinue to rely upon properly admitted reports or other documentary evidence and prior orders, as long as a witness or witnesses are sworn or affirmed and tendered to give testimony
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=387
NORTH CAROLINA: In re N.B., et al.
01.29.2009 | Child Protection / Foster Care
lack of sufficient evidence to terminate parental rights on the basis of neglect and dependency.
lack of oral evidence or an independent determination
Social Services failed to satisfy the burden of proof for termination proceedings.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/c ... 1082-1.htm
Respondent-mother specifically notes that the trial court “failed to make an independent determination that neglect existed at the time of the termination of parental rights hearing” and that “competent evidence” was lacking as to a determination of dependency.
...
In In re A.M., this Court reversed and remanded... because
the trial court entered an order based solely on the written reports of DSS and the guardian ad litem, prior court orders, and oral arguments by the attorneys involved in the case. DSS did not present any witnesses for testimony, and the trial court did not examine any witnesses. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court failed to hold a proper, independent termination hearing. Consideration of written reports, prior court orders, and the attorney's oral arguments was proper; however, in addition the trial court needed some oral testimony.
...
The only difference between the case before us and In Re A.M. is that here the trial court did hear testimony from one witness, respondent-mother....
Respondent-mother's direct testimony refuted petitioner's allegations, and petitioner did not cross-examine her...
no oral testimony was provided on behalf of DSS, and the testimony presented by respondent-mother did not provide sufficient evidence to support the termination of parental rights determination...
trial courts maycontinue to rely upon properly admitted reports or other documentary evidence and prior orders, as long as a witness or witnesses are sworn or affirmed and tendered to give testimony
.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=349
MARYLAND: Hayes v. State
01.14.2009 | Child Protection / Investigation/Assessment
negligence action was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=349
MARYLAND: Hayes v. State
01.14.2009 | Child Protection / Investigation/Assessment
negligence action was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=353
OHIO: In re H.F.
01.14.2009 | Child Protection / Disposition
appeal of an adjudication order
a parent must file an appeal within thirty days of a judgment entry finding a child to be abused, neglected or dependent and awarding temporary custody to a child services agency.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=353
OHIO: In re H.F.
01.14.2009 | Child Protection / Disposition
appeal of an adjudication order
a parent must file an appeal within thirty days of a judgment entry finding a child to be abused, neglected or dependent and awarding temporary custody to a child services agency.
.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=340
OHIO: In re F.R.
01.07.2009 | Child Protection / Adjudication
erred when it conducted the adjudication and dependency proceedings without the guardian ad litem being present.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=340
OHIO: In re F.R.
01.07.2009 | Child Protection / Adjudication
erred when it conducted the adjudication and dependency proceedings without the guardian ad litem being present.
.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=310
CHILD ABUSE REGISTERY / Procedural Due Process
11.05.2008 | Child Protection / Investigation/Assessment
CALIFORNIA: Humphries v. County of Los Angeles
the county had stigmatized the appellants, and placed a burden on their good names ability to obtain licenses or secure employment and other benefits, by placing them on the registry and providing no meaningful process for the removal of their names when they were later found to be factually innocent.
.
http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=310
CHILD ABUSE REGISTERY / Procedural Due Process
11.05.2008 | Child Protection / Investigation/Assessment
CALIFORNIA: Humphries v. County of Los Angeles
the county had stigmatized the appellants, and placed a burden on their good names ability to obtain licenses or secure employment and other benefits, by placing them on the registry and providing no meaningful process for the removal of their names when they were later found to be factually innocent.
.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests