CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Non-Dependency Term. of Parental Rights
......Burden of Proof-Findings
.........CC §232 [FC §7800 et seq.] Stnd. Met
 27 Cards On This Topic:
  • Sufficient evidence of detriment to child and parental inadequacy warranted trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights.
  • Although FC §7822 is clear that the 1-yr. statutory period of abandonment must ••occur•• prior to filing a termination petition, neither that language nor case law limits it only to the year immediately preceding the filing.
  • Divorced F's parental rights properly terminated where he left Cs for one year with the intent to abandon them per FC 7822.
  • Substantial evidence supported freeing C from F's custody and control for abandonment and failure to support.
  • Although W and C moved from Indiana to Cal, substantial evidence supported decision that H left C in W's care and custody with intent to abandon her for statutory period in FC 7822.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside order terminating father’s parental rights.
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not preempt state from terminating parental rights of gravely disabled mother.
  • Mother has no standing to raise due process rights of unknown father in attempt to defeat termination of her parental rights.
  • Mother’s due process rights protected by Cal. termination statutes and requirement that adoptability be found by clear and convincing evidence.
  • Requirements for termination under mental disability provisions satisfied; requirements discussed.
  • Deficiency of the assessment reports supporting termination of parental rights not sufficient to reverse termination; ample evidence supported court’s decision.
  • Reunification services provided to parent of below normal intelligence held adequate.
  • Termination without reunification services for mentally disabled parent upheld as constitutional.
  • Current situation as well as past acts must be considered in Civil Code section 232 proceedings.
  • Best indication of parent’s future ability to parent is found in parenting history prior to hearing.
  • Focus in Civil Code section 232 proceedings is on minor’s best interests, not rehabilitation of mother. Denial of Civil Code section 232 petition reversed.
  • Burden of proof for termination met: Reunification efforts failed and parents likely to continue inappropriate conduct.
  • Lack of parental participation in reunification plan during first 12 months of placement supports institution of termination proceedings.
  • Termination of reunification services, reasonable under circumstances, upheld despite mother’s mental disability.
  • Father’s expressed intent not to abandon insufficient to overcome Civil Code section 232 (a)(1) presumption.
  • Court need not place child with father’s sister in preference to terminating father’s parental rights.
  • When further reunification attempts would be detrimental to minor, court is under no obligation to order such attempts.
  • Court not required to order child protective services prior to terminating parental relationship.
  • Token attempts to communicate with minor did not preclude finding of abandonment. Neither marital stress nor financial difficulties excuse failure to communicate.
  • Civil Code section 232 requirements for abandonment met if one parent consents to adoption and other parent abandons.
  • Parental rights properly terminated due to parent’s worsening medical condition.
  • Cases discussing instances where CC §232 [FC §7821] standard met.


    •