In re Kenneth S

71 Citing cases

  1. In re Christian L.

    No. G041799 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 10, 2009)

    The latter statute declares, in part, “[a]ny minor for whom a guardianship has been established resulting from the selection or implementation of a permanency plan pursuant to Section 366.26 is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” (§ 366.4, subd. (a); see also In re Kenneth S. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358 [“After a guardian is appointed, the juvenile court may continue jurisdiction over the child as a dependent of the court” or “terminate dependency jurisdiction” and “retain[] jurisdiction over the child as a ward of the court..., but... no longer hold[] ongoing review hearings”].) “When a legal guardianship is established for a child, the court shall [also] make an order for visitation with the parents unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence the visitation would be detrimental to the physical or emotional well-being of the child.

  2. Kern Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. C.D. (In re Timothy D.)

    No. F063880 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2012)

    Instead, it ordered a hearing on it after finding the request may promote the children's best interests, thereby finding the petition stated a prima facie case. Once a court determines a section 388 petition states a prima facie case, it is required to hold an evidentiary hearing. (In re Kenneth S. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1359-1360 (Kenneth S.).)To forego a hearing when a prima facie case has been established deprives the petitioner of his or her due process right to a full and fair hearing on the merits. (In re Hunter W. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1463; Lesly G., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 912-915; In re Hashem H. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1800 (HashemH.).)

  3. In re O.B.

    No. B226984 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2011)

    In addition, “[w]hen a legal guardianship is established for a child, the court shall make an order for visitation with the parents unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence the visitation would be detrimental to the physical or emotional well-being of the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(C).)” (In re Kenneth S. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358.) Furthermore, unless the parental rights have been terminated, a parent has the right to participate in post permanency review hearings, including the right to request a contested review hearing to challenge or contest any proposed order.

  4. In re Grace C.

    190 Cal.App.4th 1470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 34 times
    Finding court had discretion to terminate dependency jurisdiction when mother alleged "exceptional circumstances"

    As the juvenile court observed, although the court would no longer hold ongoing review hearings after it dismissed dependency jurisdiction, the court retained jurisdiction over the minors as guardianship wards, and mother was free to petition the court for a change in order if a problem with visitation developed. (§§ 366.3, subd. (a), 388; In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 715]: In re K.D., supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 1019.) The question remains whether the juvenile court's visitation order impermissibly delegated discretion over visitation to the minors' therapist and legal guardians, an issue to which we now turn.

  5. L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Kenneth S. (In re Kenneth S.)

    B265074 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 16, 2016)

    Under section 362.4, "[w]hen a juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction over a dependent child, it is empowered to make 'exit orders' regarding custody and visitation." (Inre T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1122 (T.H.); see In re Kenneth S. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358.) In defining a parent's visitation rights, the court must balance the rights of the parent with the best interests of the child.

  6. In re A.C.

    197 Cal.App.4th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 85 times
    Affirming an exit order authorizing parents to agree on a visitation supervisor or, if they could not agree, father to choose a supervisor

    (§§ 364, subd. (c), 362.4; In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 715].) Such orders become part of any family court proceeding concerning the same child and will remain in effect until they are terminated or modified by the family court. [Citation.

  7. Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. S.C. (In re Grace C.)

    No. A127208 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2010)

    As the juvenile court observed, although the court would no longer hold ongoing review hearings after it dismissed dependency jurisdiction, the court retained jurisdiction over the minors as guardianship wards, and mother was free to petition the court for a change in order if a problem with visitation developed. (§§ 366.3, subd. (a), 388; In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358; In re K.D., supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 1019.) The question remains whether the juvenile courts visitation order impermissibly delegated discretion over visitation to the minors therapist and legal guardians, an issue to which we now turn.

  8. In re T.H.

    190 Cal.App.4th 1119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 235 times
    Finding an unauthorized delegation of judicial power where the mother was left with nearly sole power to determine visitation

    (§§ 364, subd. (c), 362.4; In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 715].) Such orders become part of any family court proceeding concerning the same child and will remain in effect until they are terminated or modified by the family court. ( In re Roger 5. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 25, 30 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 208] ( Roger S.).)

  9. In re O.C.

    No. A126371 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2010)

    Thus “if a problem develops, the parent has access to the juvenile court.” (In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358.) “A reviewing court will not disturb a court’s ruling in a dependency proceeding ‘ “ ‘unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination. [Citations].’ ”

  10. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. L.C. (In re M.E.)

    No. B334842 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2024)

    (§§ 364, subd. (c), 362.4; In re Kenneth S., Jr. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1358 ....) Such orders become part of any family court proceeding concerning the same child and will remain in effect until they are terminated or modified by the family court'" or by an order in a newly filed dependency case.