Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Victor O.

In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.), 1 Victor O. (Father) has appealed from an order that denied his section 388 petition 2 and terminated his parental rights. Father contends he was never given proper notice of certain hearings and therefore his section 388 petition requesting that the trial court vacate orders from hearings dating back to the adjudication and disposition hearing should have been granted. He asserts that (1) the court abused its discretion in not granting his petition and (2) he has suffered prejudicial error because notice provisions in the dependency court statutes and Penal Code were not followed on his behalf.

We find that although there was a failure to follow certain notice provisions, the error was not prejudicial; moreover, denial of Father’s section 388 petition was not an abuse of discretion. The order denying his section 388 petition and terminating his parental rights will be affirmed.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

A dependency petition was filed on November 22, 2006, by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) after the Department was notified by personnel at a local hospital that…