[Download] "In Re Tara K." by California Court of Appeals ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: In Re Tara K.
- Author : California Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 18, 1998
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 73 KB
Description
In this dependency extraordinary writ proceeding brought pursuant to Rule 39.1B of the California Rules of Court, we confront the recurring and sometimes difficult issue of what is the appropriate ruling at a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22, subdivision (a) *fn1 when a parent has largely complied with the reunification plan yet nonconclusory reports prepared by responsible professionals indicate the return of a minor, or as in this case three minors, would create a substantial risk of detriment to the children. Because the reports in the present case are not merely written in a conclusory fashion and they are corroborated by specific acts of conduct on the part of the mother indicative of her inability to parent and protect the children, we conclude the present petition must be denied. In so concluding, we address the difference between the present proceeding and two types of cases discussed by other divisions of the Court of Appeal. In so ruling, we conclude the present proceeding is different from the "extreme" cases synthesized by Associate Justice Elizabeth A. Baron in the decision of In re Brequia Y. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1068, where appellate courts found trial Judges abused discretion at a section 366.22 proceeding in setting a matter for a section 366.26 hearing to determine the permanent plan. Further, we conclude the present case is different from the situation discussed by Presiding Justice David G. Sills in the case of Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1747-1742, where conclusory reports which find no corroboration in the conduct of the parent are the sole basis for an order pursuant to section 366.22 setting a dependency proceeding for a permanency planning hearing as contemplated by section 366.26. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandate.