California Court of Appeal

The juvenile court's order that resulted in father's daughter remaining in out-of-home care is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court did not err in denying father's motion for "directed verdict" under Welfare and Institutions Code section 350; 2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in granting the brief 11-day continuance to allow juvenile's counsel the time to discharge her statutory duties and make a recommendation to the court at closing argument or in granting the Agency's request to reopen its case at the continued hearing; and 3) the evidence amply supported the court's detriment finding.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/22/2013
• Published 08/22/2013

Judges

• McINTYRE

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel