California Court of Appeal

In a juvenile dependency action, juvenile court order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over daughter is affirmed where: 1) there is no error in the report the social services agency and the probation department prepared for the juvenile court under Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 241.1 recommending dependency and rejecting plaintiff's claim that wardship was more appropriate; 2) trial court did not err in declining to require the probation officer to consider filing a new wardship petition against daughter under Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 601; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's order sustaining dependency jurisdiction over daughter.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/08/2009
• Published 05/08/2009

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Nicole Williams, for Petitioner D.M., Rich Pfeiffer, for Petitioner L.M., Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Orange County Social Services Agency., Law Offices of J. Michael Hughes and Lawrence A. Aufill, Laguna Hills, for Minor C.M.