Legal Opinion

Kern County Department of Human Services v. Michael U.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 26, 2000No. F033809PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VARTABEDIAN, J.

When does an alleged biological father become a “party” in a dependency proceeding? We answer this question, as well as due process inquiries, in the context of a minor father who has failed to personally assume any responsibility for his child. Here, appellant Michael U. became named as the alleged birth father of Emily R., the subject of already ongoing dependency proceedings. The juvenile court entered orders of detention, jurisdiction, disposition, and review; the court additionally made findings at several junctures determining sufficient efforts were made to notify…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. People v. GilbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Steven A. v. Rickie M.California Supreme Court · 1992

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Francisco G. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. Joseph G. v. Cyril B.California Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services v. Irene V.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. AO Alpha-Bank v. Yakovlev, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. California School Employees Ass'n v. Livingston Union School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API