Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Court of appeals' orders terminating a father's parental rights to his children and summarily denying his petition for modification under Welfare and Inst. Code section 388 is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his request for an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition for modification as he did not state he was currently unable to provide the children a stable, safe, permanent placement; 2) it did not violate the father's due process rights when it terminated his parental rights without making an initial finding that his acts or omissions brought his children within any of the descriptions set forth in section 300; 3) a biological father has no right to an express finding of unfitness or detriment before the court may terminate his parental rights; and 4) as required under section 366.26(c)(1), the court made an adequate, previous detriment finding as to the father.
Read In re A.S., No. D054951 [HTML]
Filed December 17, 2009
Opinion by Judge Huffman
For Appellant: Patti L. Dikes
For Appellee: John J. Sansone, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.