Legal Opinion
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Stacy B.
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 25, 2012No. D061577PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McINTYRE, J.
In this juvenile dependency case, we examine the term “nonminor dependent” as this term is used in the California Fostering Connections to Success Act (the Act). (Assem. Bill No. 12 (2009-2010 Reg. Sess.); Assem. Bill No. 212 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.).) We conclude that the dependent child in this case did not meet the definition of a nonminor dependent and that even though she had turned 18, the juvenile court did not err when it held the 12-month permanency review hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f); undesignated statutory references are to this code.) We also…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Mahidol v. JensenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
3Cited by8 opinions
- Contra Costa Cnty. Children & Family Servs. Bureau v. David B. (In re David B.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau v. R.G.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Orange Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. Jesse S. (In re Jesse S.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- In re I.C. CA2/4California Court of Appeal · 2020
- In re L.Y.N. CA1/3California Court of Appeal · 2021
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.