California Court of Appeal

Order granting reunification services to presumed father is remanded with orders to vacate where: 1) the record made clear that providing reunification services to father would be detrimental to the child; and 2) the court abused its discretion when it ordered agency to provide reunification services to father. Order directing agency to provide reunification services to other presumed father is affirmed where: 1) despite court's erroneous legal conclusion regarding section 361.5, the court did not abuse its discretion with this order; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's implied finding that reunification was in the children's best interests.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/20/2008
• Published 08/20/2008

Judges

• HALLER, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John J. Sansone, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Dana C. Shoffner and Gary C. Seiser, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Susan Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors and for Appellants, Adrianna P., M.G., Maurice G., Jr., and Q.G.


• For Appellees:
  
• Maryann M. Milcetic, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Esther M., William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Maurice G., Neil R. Trop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Andrew P.