DENNY H. v. Superior Court

Caution

131 Cal. App. 4th 1501·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1288·2005 Daily Journal DAR 10066·33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7408

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 2005A109716California4,456 words

Opinion

Reardon, J.

By petition seeking a writ of mandate, Denny H. (father) asks us to vacate the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 for his daughters Jennifer (age 12) and Amanda (age 10). He asserts that (1) reasonable services were not offered to him and the court erred in denying him additional services; and (2) the trial court committed procedural errors which denied him due process. We deny the petition.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Prior Dependency

The involvement of Jennifer (bom 1993) and Amanda (bom 1995) with dependency systems began in 1996 when both girls were taken from their mother and placed in protective custody in Napa. The matter was transferred to Mendocino County, where father lived. In March 1998 the Mendocino County Juvenile Court restored custody to him and terminated jurisdiction.

B. San Francisco Dependency

Thereafter father and daughters moved a lot, ending up in San Francisco. In May 2003 father was arrested for public intoxication and the girls were taken into protective custody. The police report indicated that…

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.