Follow us:
CHILD PROTECTION
Cite: No. S-11-919; 284 Neb. 340; 2012 Neb. LEXIS 104 (Neb. Sept. 14, 2012)
COLORADO: State ex rel. O.C.
The Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division Seven,
reversed the Jefferson County District Court order denying
appellant-grandparents motion to intervene in the dependency
proceeding, holding that grandparents are entitled to intervention as a
matter of right under Colorado Law. The court interpreted C.R.C.P. 24 to
permit intervention of interested parties in dependency and neglect
proceedings and determined that the denial of appellants motion was a
final, appealable order, citing People in Interest of M.D.C.M., 34 Colo.
App. 91; People in Interest of C.P., 34 Colo. App. 54; Feigin v. Alexa
Group Ltd., 19 P.3d 23. Here, the grandparents appealed the decision to
deny their motion to intervene after the trial court concluded they did
not meet the statutorily articulated custody requirement. However, the
court determined that C.R.S. 19-3-507 was ambiguous and, relying on the
legislatures presumed knowledge of then existing law, determined that
the custody requirement applied only to foster parents who wished to
intervene. The court held that grandparents had the right to intervene
in a dependency and neglect proceeding at any time after adjudication,
regardless of whether the child was in their care. Accordingly, the
denial of the motion to intervene was reversed and the case was
remanded.
Cite: No. 12CA0649; 2012 COA 161; 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1569 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012)
CHILD PROTECTION/Disposition
ILLINOIS: People v. Bernadine L. (In re Rico L.) The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed the Circuit Court of Cook Countys ruling vacating a protective supervision order and giving custody of appellant-adoptive mothers child to DCFS, finding that the court had the right to do what was in the childs best interests, even though it was not appellants fault that she could not meet the childs needs. The court found that under In re P.P., 261 Ill. App. 3d 598, after a court has adjudicated a child neglected, it retains the right to alter the custody placement if the circumstances and best interests of the child warrant it. Here, appellant made an effort to care for the child, but her inability to deal with his repeated outbursts and psychiatric issues led the court to adjudicate him dependent; although he initially was placed in residential care, he was later returned home under an order of protective supervision. After the child did not show improvement, the court modified its decision, vacating the supervision order, finding appellant unable to care for the child, and granting custody to the DCFS. The court concluded that although the parties would have been better served by the filing of supplemental petitions or an order alleging a violation of the supervision order, the lower court still acted within its authority by considering the best interests of the child and modifying the order accordingly. See, In re C.H., 398 Ill. App. 3d 603. Cite: No. 1-11-3028; 2012 Ill. App. LEXIS 765; 2012 IL App (1st) 113028B (Ill. App. Ct., Sept. 14, 2012)
CHILD PROTECTION/Disposition
Cite: No. 31,324; 2012 N.M. App. LEXIS 105 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2012)
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
Cite: No. 2012AP1562, 2012AP1563, 2012AP1564; 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 756 (Wis. Ct. Ap. Sept. 25, 2012) |
Friday, October 5, 2012
NCALP Weekly Case Summary
October 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment