Issues from '09 child protection cases

Here's the place to discuss how to win in juvenile courtrooms.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:39 pm

.

http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=454

CALIFORNIA: In re: B. Del C.S.B.
04.09.2009 | Child Protection


International custody issue

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:42 pm

.

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

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:02 pm

.

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.


.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:05 pm

.

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)

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:16 am

.

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

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:29 pm

.

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.

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:33 pm

.

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.

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:39 pm

.

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.

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:43 pm

.

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.

.


Return to “Juvenile Court”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests