In Re Cicely L.

Good Law
28 Cal. App. 4th 1697·34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 345
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 1994Docket Nos. E012830, E013643California3,001 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thomas L. Hardy and Steven D. Schatz, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Objectors and Appellants.

William C. Katzenstein, County Counsel, and Lucy Furuta, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

Patrick J. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

[Opinion certified for partial publication. [1] ]

OPINION

DABNEY, Acting P.J.

Lisa P. (Lisa) and Kenneth L. (Kenneth) each appeal from an order terminating their parental rights to Cicely L. (Cicely). Kenneth alone appeals from a subsequent order similarly terminating their parental rights to Cicely's older brother, David L. (David).

Kenneth contends that reasonable reunification services were not provided to him because he was not allowed any visitation with David and Cicely as long as he was incarcerated in state prison. Kenneth also challenges the juvenile court's findings that he had not had regular visitation and contact with David and Cicely such that they would benefit from continuing the relationship with him, and that David and Cicely were likely to be adopted, as not supported by substantial evidence. Lisa challenges the same findings on the same grounds, but solely with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.