IN RE: DANIEL B. (2011)

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

IN RE: DANIEL B., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROSE B., Defendant and Appellant.

F060767

Decided: March 21, 2011

Kathleen Murphy Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Bryan Walters, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

O P I N I O N

Rose B. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her three sons. (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 366.26.) ¹ She joins in an argument made by the children's father in his appeal, In re Daniel B. (case no. F060840). The father challenged the juvenile court's denial of a request he made pursuant to section 388 to reinstate reunification services for him. We concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying father's request. There were neither changed circumstances nor any showing that reunification services for father at the permanency planning phase would promote the children's best interests.

Because mother in her appeal raises no independent claim of error, we conclude the court properly terminated parental rights.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.

FN1. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.. FN1. All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network