California Court of Appeal

In a juvenile dependency action, petition for writ of mandate challenging a juvenile court order is denied where the court did not err in terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26 hearing, as the undisputed evidence that father did not visit his daughter during the six-month review period sufficiently supported the court's finding that father did not meet the "contact and visit" requirement of sec. 366.21(e).

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/27/2009
• Published 05/27/2009

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Deborah A. Kwast, Orange County Public Defender, Frank Ospino, Assistant Public Defender, Stacy Roark and Paul DeQuatto, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner., Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, and Karen L. Christensen, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest., Law Office of Harold LaFlamme and Yana Kennedy, Orange, for the minor.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.